sign in sign up
<<
Home , Greenhouse gas emissions

1

i

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

With the establishment of its Office of in September 2011, the American University in Cairo affirmed its commitment to environmentally-responsible and stewardship of the earth’s resources. For many decades, AUC has championed environmental sustainability and economic development; today, with the publication of the third edition of the AUC Report, which records significant decreases in our carbon emissions over the last three years, we are proud to continue the tradition of contributing to developing, implementing, testing and assessing workable solutions to the challenges of .

Egypt’s special vulnerability to the effects of change and its rising per capita carbon emissions gives urgency to addressing this crucial component of sustainability. We at AUC believe that having a meaningful impact on starts at home. We believe policy should be driven by clear, accurate and useful data and in this report, we illustrate the value of consistent measurement and assessment in reporting on the elements of our operations that contribute to emissions. Data alone is not enough, however; we have also used this information to develop policies and practices in heating and air conditioning, water use and lighting, among other things, that permit us to systematically lower our emissions without compromising the quality of our operation. We hope that this continues to serve as a model and a challenge, encouraging others to address climate change as well.

Preparation of this report was an interdisciplinary effort, drawing on talent from across the university, including faculty in engineering, students in public policy and in science, and administrative staff across the campus, from facilities and maintenance to institutional research. The report includes 15 specific recommendations for reducing AUC's carbon footprint; in the coming months, we will be developing community conversations about how to assess and apply those recommendations.

I would like to thank Marc Rauch, the Director of the Office of Sustainability, and Khaled Tarabieh, Assistant Professor of Sustainable Design in the School of Sciences and Engineering, who spearheaded this effort, and Richard Tutwiler, Director of the Research Institute for Sustainable Environments, who continued to provide valued support. I hope AUC’s Carbon Footprint Report will be a model for future efforts at AUC and at universities across and the region to ensure that we all recognize our responsibilities to be trustworthy stewards of the Earth’s resources.

Lisa Anderson President The American University in Cairo

COVER The black pyramid’s dimensions (nearly eight times the size of the Great Pyramid by volume) represent the volume of greenhouse gases (principally ) emitted by AUC in the academic year 2014 (September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2014).

ii

TEAM MEMBERS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Research and Report Team

Research Institute for a Sustainable Environment Office of Sustainability Richard Tutwiler, Director Marc Rauch, Director Tina Jaskolski, Research Coordinator Wael Taha, Energy Conservation Engineer Andrew Petrovich, Research Associate Chelsea Estevez, Presidential Intern

School of Sciences and Engineering Khaled Tarabieh, Assistant Professor of Sustainable Design

Acknowledgements We would like to extend special thanks to the Office of the Provost and especially to Dr. Ehab Abdel-Rahman, Vice Provost for Research, for providing critical funding to support this 3- year carbon footprint study.

Special thanks are also due to Andrew Petrovich for his perseverance, dedication and skill in assembling and analyzing the data needed for this report.

Thanks are also owed to Ahmad Gaber, Badr Kheir El-Dine and Chemonics Egypt for their assistance in calculating the energy needed to supply the University with domestic water and treated wastewater; to Eng. Nagui Nageeb of the Shaker Consulting Group for his assistance with calculating carbon coefficients for electricity supplied by the Egyptian Electricity Authority (EEA); to Ola Anwar, former Manager of Institutional Surveys at AUC’s Data Analytics and Institutional Research Office (DAIR) for her help in conducting online transportation surveys; and to Eng. Mahmoud El Gamal, former Contracts Manager for the Office of Sustainability, for his help with energy data collection and analysis.

Thanks as well to Dina Abulfotuh, AUC Vice President for Communications, to Shadi Afifi, Assistant Director For Design, Department of Communications, and to Reem Atia, Senior Designer, Department of Communications, for their help in designing the cover art; and to Shereen G. Saafan, Director, Office of the Executive Vice President for Administration and Finance, for her help with proofreading and editing.

Research Institute for a Sustainable Environment (RISE) The Research Institute for Sustainable Environment (RISE) is a research, education, and service unit of AUC dedicated to benefitting people and nature through integrated resource management solutions to environmental problems.

The Office of Sustainability The Office of Sustainability is responsible for addressing AUC’s environmental challenges, including climate change, scarcity of resources, pollution and , in ways that also improve the university’s operations, strengthen its finances and enhance its reputation.

The School of Sciences and Engineering (SSE) The School of Sciences and Engineering offers a number of courses that integrate sustainability across the different departments, faculty research, and student led initiatives. The School has recently launched a degree that combines sustainable development with a number of engineering disciplines.

iii

CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………...1 1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………..………………...…4 1.1 Why Do a Carbon Footprint Study at AUC?...... 4 1.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Egypt and the MENA Region……………………………....5 1.3 Climate Change and Resource Scarcity……………………………………………………...5 1.4 University Overview………………………………………………………………………...6 1.5 AUC’s Central Utility Plant and Co-Generation…………………………………………….6 1.6 3-Year Progress Report (AY 12 – AY 14)…………………………………………………...7 2. OVERALL METHODOLOGY AND ORGANIZATION OF REPORT……………………..…..9 2.1 Reference Carbon Calculator………………………………………………………………9 2.2 Boundaries………………………………………………………………………………....9

2.3 Calculating Carbon Dioxide Equivalents (CO2e)…………………………………………...9 2.4 Improved Methodologies, Data Collection and Data Analysis……………………………10 2.5 Organization of Report…………………………………………………………………...10 3. HEATING, VENTILATION, AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC) AND DOMESTIC HOT WATER………………………………………………………………..………………….……….10 3.1 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………10 3.2 Electricity for HVAC……………………………………………………………………..11 3.3 Chilled and Hot Water…………………………………………………………………....14 4. TRANSPORTATION……………………………………………….………………….………....15 4.1 Summary....……………………………………………………....……………………….15 4.2 Commuting by Bus and ; Carpooling…………………………………………………16 4.3 Air Travel………………………………………………………………………………...18 4.4 University Fleet………………..…………………………………………...... ………20 4.5 Sponsored Field Trips………………………………………………………………….....20 5. ELECTRICITY FOR LIGHTING AND OTHER EQUIPMENT (NON-HVAC)...... 21 5.1 Summary…………………………………………………………………….....………....21 5.2 Emissions………………………………………………………………………………...21 6. …………...…………………………………………………………………….21 6.1 Emissions………………………………………………………………………………...21 6.2 Methodology……………………………………………………………………………..22 6.3 Data Sources……………………………………………………………………………..22 6.4 Emission Factors…………………………………………………………………....……22 7. PAPER USE……………………………………………………………………………….………22 7.1 Emissions………………………………………………………………………………...22 7.2 Methodology……………………………………………………………………………..23 7.3 Data Sources……………………………………………………………………………..23 7.4 Emission Factors………………………………………………………………………....23 8. WATER SUPPLY……………………………………………………………………….………....23 8.1 Introduction: The Energy-Water Nexus……………………………..…………………....23 8.2 Emissions………………………………………………………………………...………23 8.3 Methodology for Calculating Carbon Emissions.……....…………………………………25 8.4 Data Sources……………………………………………………………………………..26 8.5 Emission Factors………………………………………………………………………....26 9. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL………………………………………………….…………………...26 9.1 Emissions………………………………………………………………………………...26 9.2 Methodology……………………………………………………………………………..26 9.3 Data Sources……………………………………………………………………………..27

iv

9.4 Emission Factors………………………………………………………………………....27 10. FOR DOMESTIC AND LAB USE…………………….………………………27 10.1 Emissions………………………………………………………………………………...27 10.2 Methodology……………………………………………………………………………..27 10.3 Data Sources……………………………………………………………………………..27 10.4 Emission Factors………………………………………………………………………....27 11. ………………………………………………………….…………………………..27 11.1 Summary....……………....……………………………………………………………….27 11.2 Emissions………………………………………………………………………………...28 11.3 Methodology……………………………………………………………………………..28 11.4 Emissions Savings from Reduced Use of Synthetic ……………………………28 11.5 Data Sources……………………………………………………………………………..28 11.6 Emission and Other Relevant Factors……………………………………………………29 12. LANDSCAPING AND COMPOSTING AS CARBON OFFSETS.………………...…...... …….29 12.1 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………29 12.2 Emissions Sequestered from Landscaping………………………………………………..29 12.3 Methodology for Landscaping………………………………………………………...... 30 12.4 Data Sources………………………………………………………………….....……...... 30 12.5 through Composting…………………………………………...... 30 12.6 Data Sources…………………………………………………………………………...... 30 12.7 Total Emissions Sequestered from Landscaping and Composting………………………..30 12.8 Sequestration Factors…………………………………………………………………...... 31 13. AUC’S ENERGY USE INTENSITY (EUI) AND CARBON EMISSIONS/ FTE STUDENT COMPARED TO AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES IN SIMILAR ……...………….….31 13.1 AUC’s Energy Use Intensity (EUI) Compared to American Universities in Similar Climates……………………………………………………………..…….………………31 13.2 Carbon Emissions per FTE Student……………………………………..……....………...32 14. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REDUCING AUC’S CARBON FOOTPRINT…………...... …...34

Appendix 1: New Cairo Campus and Map of Greater Cairo………………..……………..…………….38 Appendix 2: How the Central Utility Plant Works…………………………………………………..…..39 Appendix 3: Differences in Emissions from AY 12 to AY 14 Using AY 14 Methodology……….……..42 Appendix 4: Emission Factor Calculations…………………………………………………..………….43 Appendix 5: Domestic Water Supply Delivery Path and Energy Calculation Example………………...... 45 Appendix 6: Treated Wastewater Supply Delivery Path and Energy Calculation Example.……..…….....46

v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A carbon footprint is a widely accepted method of measuring the impact of human activity on global warming. A university’s carbon footprint is the annual total of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) and other significant greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere as a result of daily activities and campus operations. Carbon footprints are commonly measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MT CO2e). There are at least three good reasons to calculate the American University in Cairo’s (AUC’s) carbon footprint: first, the potentially catastrophic consequences of global warming for Egypt; second, the University’s commitment to innovative research in the field of sustainability; and third, the desire to make AUC’s own operations more sustainable. This study calculates the carbon footprint for AUC’s New Cairo Campus, where most of the University’s activities now take place, for the 2013-2014 academic year (September 1, 2013 – August 31, 2014). For most categories of carbon emissions it also provides historical data for the 2011-2012 academic year (September 1, 2011 – August 31, 2012) and for the 2012-2013 academic year (September 1, 2012 – August 31, 2013). Thus, this report shows trends in AUC’s carbon emissions over three years. Throughout the report that follows, the following abbreviations will be used: AY 14 – (September 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014) AY 13 – (September 1, 2012 through August 31, 2013) AY12 – (September 1, 2011 through August 31, 2012) The main activities contributing to AUC’s AY 14 carbon footprint (see Figure 1 and Box 1), namely heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and domestic hot water, transportation, lighting and use of other electrical equipment, use of refrigerants, paper use and water supply, are shown in Figure 1, together with the MT CO2e attributable to each and the percentage contribution of each to AUC’s AY 14 carbon footprint.

Between AY 12 and AY 14, AUC’s carbon footprint decreased by 1,611 MT CO2e (from 37,712 MT CO2e to 36,102.39 MT CO2e) or by approximately 4.25%. The reductions and increases for each major category of emissions between AY 12 and AY 14 are approximately as follows:

Reductions Increases HVAC (-22%) Transportation (+25%) Electricity (Non-HVAC) (-8%) Refrigerants (+13%) Paper (-21%) Water (-25%)

The reductions and increases are discussed in more detail in Section 1.6 (“3-Year Progress Report”).

In the report that follows, we set forth the methodology, data sources and assumptions that underlay our findings, and we describe specific, steps that we are already taking or can take in the future to further reduce our carbon footprint.

1

AUC’s Carbon Footprint, Academic Year (AY) 2014 (September 1, 2013-August 31, 2014)

AUC’s operations resulted in emissions of 36,102.39 MT CO2e1

HVAC and Domestic Hot Water, 43.6% (15,831.2 MT CO2e) Electricity for HVAC, 27.6% Chilling and Heating Water, 16.1%

Transportation, 28.6%

(10,363.1 MT CO2e) Commuting by Car, 15.4% Air Travel, 6.3% Commuting by Bus, 4.9% University Fleet, 1.7% Sponsored Trips, 0.2%

Sponsored Trips, 0.2% Electricity for Lighting and Equipment (Non-HVAC) 22.5% (8,177 MT CO2e)

Refrigerants, 1.8% (639.8 MT CO2e)

Paper Use, 1.5% (544.4 MT CO2e)

Water Supply, 1.5% (540.2 MT CO2e) Buildings 0.4% Irrigation, 0.7% HVAC, 0.4%

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MT CO2e)

Figure 1: AUC’s Carbon Footprint, Academic Year 2014. Not shown are minor contributions from solid waste disposal (0.04%; 129.25 MT CO2e), natural gas for domestic and lab use (0.09%; 31.2 MT CO2e) and fertilizers (0.05%; 16.24 MT CO2e).

1 Total emissions reflect deductions for carbon offsets of approximately 170 MT CO2e from landscaping and composting (see Section 12). 2

Box 1: The Main Activities Contributing to AUC’s AY 14 Carbon Footprint

Nearly 95% of AUC’s carbon footprint is attributable to three main systems (see Figure 1): (1) heating, ventilation and air conditioning (commonly known as “HVAC”) and domestic hot water; (2) transportation; and (3) lighting and use of other electrical equipment.

HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning) Nearly 44% of the carbon footprint is attributable to HVAC. Not surprisingly, given that the campus is located in a desert climate where air conditioning is needed more than half the year, the vast majority of these CO2 emissions result from the consumption of energy for air conditioning. As discussed in Section 1.6 and shown in Section 3, three years of conservation and efficiency measures have significantly reduced both the energy needed for HVAC and the corresponding CO2 emissions.

Transportation More than 28% of the carbon footprint can be traced to transportation, with the bulk of transportation emissions (more than 20% of the footprint) attributable to commuting by car and bus. Commuting has significant impacts because thousands of AUCians commute daily to AUC’s New Cairo Campus. Commuting-related CO2 emissions have increased since AY 12, largely because of declining bus ridership and increased commuting by car. The reasons for these trends are discussed in Section 1.6 and Section 4.

Lighting and Other Equipment More than 22% of the carbon footprint results from lighting and from the use of office and other electrical equipment on campus. As discussed in Section 1.6 and shown in Sections 3 and 5, a two-year effort to reprogram the timing controls for 30,000 lights in public areas has significantly reduced not only the electricity consumed by public lighting but also the corresponding CO2 emissions.

Refrigerants use is now responsible for 1.8% of the carbon footprint. As discussed in Section 1.6 and Section 6, refrigerant use and the corresponding CO2 emissions have grown since AY 12 as a result of increased maintenance and an increase in the number of stand-alone air conditioning units used on campus.

Paper As a result of steadily declining paper consumption over the last three years, the use of paper now contributes only 1.5% of the carbon footprint.

Water Supplying water to the campus now accounts for only 1.5% of AUC’s carbon footprint. As discussed in Section 1.6 and Section 8, the decrease since AY 12 is attributable to the substitution of treated wastewater for fresh water in irrigating the campus landscaping, as well as to other successful water conservation measures.

3

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Why Do a Carbon Footprint Study at AUC?2 Of all the countries in the Arab world, Egypt is the most vulnerable to global warming. Rising sea levels predicted by climate change models threaten to flood large swaths of the Delta, Egypt’s breadbasket (see Figure 2), undermining Egypt’s security and threatening the livelihoods of millions of agricultural workers. Key population centers are also at risk, most notably the cities of Alexandria and Port Said. Additionally, rising mean temperatures will negatively impact Egypt’s ability to grow enough food to feed its burgeoning population, causing further disruptions in the agricultural sector that presently employs over 30% of the workforce. Another threat is the potential impact of climate change on rainfall patterns in highland , the source of over 80% of the Nile River water reaching Egypt. Given Egypt’s near total dependence on the Nile for its fresh water, either a reduction in average rainfall in Ethiopia or greater variation in annual rainfall could challenge the sustainability of Egyptian society.

Displaced population: 3,800 000 Displaced population: 6,100 000 Lost cropland: 1,800 km² Lost cropland: 4,500 km²

Figure 2: Potential impacts of 0.5 meter and 1.0 meter sea level rises on Egypt’s Nile Delta.3

The stark consequences of climate change for Egypt led the American University in Cairo (AUC) to undertake the first carbon footprint studies of an institution of higher education in the and North African (MENA).4 These studies also respond to concerns about the sustainability of AUC’s own operations after the University moved most of its activities from a small 90-year-old campus in Downtown Cairo to a new 260-acre campus in the sprawling desert suburb of New Cairo, about 35 kilometers southeast of Downtown.

Carbon footprints are widely used as a measure of the impact of human activities on global warming.5 A carbon footprint calculates net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over time, typically one or more years. The World Resources Institute describes a carbon footprint as “a representation of the effect you, or your organization, have on the climate in terms of the total amount of greenhouse gases produced (measured in units of carbon dioxide)”.6 A carbon footprint identifies sources of carbon emissions, provides a guide for reducing carbon emissions and evaluates progress in reducing those emissions.

In AUC’s case, a principal goal of carbon footprint studies is to develop data and expertise useful for reducing AUC’s own greenhouse gas emissions. A second important goal is to strengthen the University’s finances by permanently reducing its appetite for carbon-based energy sources such as natural gas, electricity, and diesel fuel that must be purchased from third parties. Finally, we hope to provide

2 Portions of Section 1 appeared initially in Rauch, M. and Tutwiler, R. (2012). 3 Simonett, 2005. 4 The present study covers AY 14 (September 1, 2013 – August 31, 2014) and also shows changes in carbon emissions from AY 12 to AY 14 in every category in which the data permits useful year-to-year comparisons to be made. 5 A recent high-level survey of sustainability indicators concluded that carbon footprints remain a powerful tool, “capable of sending strong messages in terms of the overutilization of the planet’s capacity for absorption.” (Stiglitz et al., 2010). 6 World Resources Institute, 2011.

4 a replicable model and methods that can be adopted by other higher education institutions in the MENA region to identify, quantify and reduce their own carbon emissions.

1.2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Egypt and the MENA Region More than 40% of Egypt’s carbon emissions come from two sectors: power generation and road . This is comparable to other MENA countries (see Box 2), particularly those with a significant ( and natural gas) sector. In Egypt, the proportions of emissions from power, road transport, and basic industry are expected to increase, while the contributions from , solid waste, and construction should decline.7

Box 2: Carbon Emissions in the Middle East and North Africa Egypt’s national greenhouse gas (GHG), or carbon emissions are the second highest emissions in

the Middle East and North Africa region, after ’s. Egypt’s national emissions are

estimated to be 318.2 million metric tons of CO2e (carbon equivalent). It is predicted that Egypt’s emissions will increase at a faster pace than population growth: by the year 2030 Egypt’s national emissions will have more than doubled.

Source: Based on Carboun Group, 2011; Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency, 2012.

The obstacles to reducing emissions in Egypt and the MENA region include arid to hyper-arid desert ecosystems, lengthy summers with extreme heat, rapid urbanization and the limits of prevailing technologies. Egypt’s potential for lowering national emissions or at least reducing the rate of growth in emissions is slightly lower than in comparable developing economies because gains have already been made in power generation: Egypt has a high proportion of natural gas-fired power plants and presently uses no -fired plants. Overall, the best strategy may be to lower demand for electricity in buildings, while generating more power from renewable sources, particularly wind and solar energy.8

1.3. Climate Change and Resource Scarcity: Interrelated Crises with Interrelated Solutions Any discussion of carbon emissions must acknowledge the chronic shortages of fuel and electricity that have plagued Egypt over the last few years, as well as the longer-term but even more serious challenge of permanent water scarcity.9 Long lines at gas stations to buy gasoline or diesel fuel were common in 2012- 2013 in Cairo, and rolling blackouts that move from neighborhood to neighborhood during hours of peak electricity demand have continued on a nearly daily basis during the hot summer months.

Each year, as Egypt’s population grows and its annual allocation of water from the Nile remains fixed at 55.5 billion cubic meters, per capita10 availability of water falls further below the United Nations and World Bank “water poverty” line of 1,000 cubic meters annually11. At AUC’s New Cairo campus, water

7 Industrial Modernization Center, 2010. 8 Ibid. 9 Sabry, 2012; Interantional Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, 2012. 10 Abdin and Gaafar, 2009. 11 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2014.

5 scarcity hit home during 2012 and 2013, as the City of New Cairo on several occasions was unable to supply enough water to keep the University operating.

If there is a bright side to the closely linked challenges of climate change and resource scarcity, it is that the solutions are also closely linked, as amply illustrated by this report: by learning to conserve our scarce resources, especially those directly or indirectly dependent on carbon-based fuels, we will simultaneously reduce our carbon emissions and thus help to save our fragile climate. Conversely, it is impossible to make significant progress in combating global warming without better management of these scarce resources.

1.4. University Overview AUC was founded in 1919 and is accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools in the (MSCHE). Today, it offers American- style liberal arts education as well as graduate programs to Egyptians, other students from the MENA region and international study-abroad students. AUC aspires to enhance service to Egypt and sustainable development in all its activities. In September 2008, the University moved the bulk of its operations from nine acres of campuses centered on Tahrir Square in downtown Cairo to an all-new, state-of-the-art 260- acre campus in the developing desert city of New Cairo (see Appendix 1), and built space jumped from 68,000m2 to 203,000m2 as a result. Since the 2008 move to New Cairo, the University’s operating budget has more than doubled, and the student, faculty, and staff head counts have increased. In short, the University’s activities have expanded to capitalize on its new facilities and to achieve its long-term strategic goals. Table 1 shows the University’s population from 2012 to 2014.

In AY 2014 (September 1, 2013 – August 31, 2014), the University’s operating budget was US$ 164,900,000 including a utilities budget of US$ 4,700,000 and a research budget of US$ 5,133,954.

Table 1. AUC Faculty, Staff and Students, AY 2012-1412 AY 12 AY 13 AY 14 Faculty (Full and Part-Time) 843 847 787 Staff 2,838 2,738 2,684 Students Full-Time Students 5,214 5,346 5,247 Part-Time Students 1,289 1,306 1,315 Total 10,184 10,237 10,033 Total Full-Time Equivalent 5,859 5,999 5,905 (FTE) Students13

1.5. AUC’s Central Utility Plant and Co-Generation Since two thirds of AUC’s carbon emissions are attributable to heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), domestic hot water, and the use of lighting and other electrical equipment (see Figure 1), understanding how these services and utilities are delivered to the New Cairo campus is vital for understanding AUC’s carbon footprint.

As part of the construction of the New Cairo campus, AUC entered into a long-term contract with The Egyptian Company for by Natural Gas (GasCool) to build and operate an on-campus central utility plant. The plant, which has a floor area of some 5,781m² (62,226 ft²) and is illustrated schematically in Appendix 2, produced all of the chilled water used for air conditioning, all of the hot water used for heating, most of the domestic hot water and 80% of the electricity14 used on campus in AY 2014. The manner in which each of these services and utilities is produced at the central utility plant is explained more fully in Appendix 2.

The basic design of AUC’s central utility plant is in two important respects. First, the fuel used is natural gas, a relatively clean-burning (albeit carbon-based) fuel that for the most part is extracted domestically from relatively abundant reserves in Egypt. Second, the plant uses co-

12 AUC Office of Data Analytics and Institutional Research, 2014. 13 Includes full-time students and part-time students representing half of one full-time student. 14 The remaining 20% came from the Egyptian Electricity Authority, the public utility, as discussed in Section 3.2 and Appendix 2.

6 generation, a process of capturing and from electricity generators, to produce nearly half of the hot water used on campus without burning natural gas. For a more detailed explanation of co- generation at AUC’s central utility plant, see Appendix 2.

1.6. 3-Year Progress Report (AY 12 through AY 14) Between AY 12 and AY 14, AUC’s carbon footprint decreased by a net amount of 1,610 MT CO2e (from 37,712 MT CO2e to 36,102 MT CO2e) or by approximately 4.25%.

Focusing on the six main contributors to the footprint (see Figure 1), healthy reductions in carbon emissions from (1) HVAC and domestic hot water, (2) lighting and other electrical equipment, (3) paper consumption and (4) water supply, were offset to a significant extent by increases in emissions from (1) transportation (especially commuting by bus and car) and (2) use of refrigerants. We will consider first the four categories with reductions in emissions, then the two categories with offsetting increases in emissions.

1.6.1. Reduced Emissions from HVAC and Domestic Hot Water, from Electricity for Lighting and Other Equipment, from Paper Consumption and from Water Supply

HVAC and Domestic Hot Water

This category was the star performer as far as emissions reductions are concerned, with 4,568 fewer MT CO2e in AY 14 than in AY 12, a reduction of 22%. Three years of aggressive energy conservation measures (with a particular focus on HVAC since it is by far the biggest energy user on campus) have produced the desired results. Indeed, as of AY 14 AUC’s overall energy use intensity (EUI) ranks in the middle third of a group of American universities selected for EUI comparisons because they operate in hot-dry climates similar to Cairo’s (see Section 13.1 and Figure 18).

As shown in Figure 1 and discussed more fully in Section 3, HVAC and domestic hot water is a composite category reflecting emissions from electricity used to operate the HVAC system and emissions from energy used for producing chilled and hot water. The lion’s share of emissions savings in this category (3,693.5 out of 4,568 MT CO2e) was attributable to reductions in emissions from producing chilled and hot water. Although the majority of electricity used on campus is used to operate the HVAC system (see Section 3.2.1 and Appendix 2) and although the conservation measures aimed at HVAC necessarily resulted in substantial electricity savings, there was not a corresponding reduction in carbon emissions from electricity for reasons discussed in the next subsection. Electricity for Lighting and other Equipment

Between AY 12 and AY 14 emissions in this category fell by only 716 MT CO2e or 8%, despite successful electricity conservation measures targeted principally at managing the HVAC system and the 30,000 public lighting fixtures on campus more efficiently. The lesson to be learned is that reducing carbon emissions can be tricky and complicated. Even seemingly straightforward propositions -- such as that reducing any type of energy consumption will result in a corresponding reduction in carbon emissions – may need to be qualified. As discussed more fully in Section 3.2.2 and shown in Figures 3a and 3b, the University consumes electricity from two sources, its own power plant and the public utility. Between AY 12 and AY 14 overall electricity consumption at the New Cairo Campus dropped by nearly 15.5%, but most of the reduction came from electricity supplied by the public utility. This helped the university save money (electricity consumed from the public utility is much more expensive) and helped to maintain fuller capacity utilization at the University’s own power plant, but an unintended consequence was to limit reductions in carbon emissions. The key to understanding this perverse effect is the difference in operating efficiencies between the public utility and AUC’s own power plant. For reasons such as economies of scale and fuel mix (see Section 3.2.2), the utility produces electricity more efficiently than AUC does at its own power plant. More efficient production means less fuel is needed to produce a kilowatt-hour of electricity, which in turn

7 means a lower carbon coefficient for electricity supplied by the utility (see Appendix 4) and correspondingly lower CO2e emissions per kilowatt-hour for electricity produced by the public utility. The University’s electricity conservation measures over the past three years not only reduced electricity consumption overall, but effectively shifted consumption from the more efficient producer (the public utility) to the less efficient producer (its own power plant) (See Figure 3a and Figure 3b). Thus the relatively disappointing 8% reduction in CO2e emissions between AY 12 and AY 14, when compared to the 15.5% reduction in electricity consumption. Paper There has been a steady decline in paper consumption at AUC since the University moved the bulk of its operations to the New Cairo campus in September 2008. This trend continued between AY 12 and AY 14 (see Section 7), resulting in emissions reductions of 147 MT CO2e (21%) and benefitting the environment as well as the climate. Water

CO2e emissions attributable to supplying water to the campus decreased by 181 MT CO2e (25%) from AY 12 to AY 14 (see Section 8). Much of this reduction resulted from switching from domestic (drinking quality) water to treated wastewater for irrigation of campus landscaping (see Section 8.3). As shown in Appendix 5 and Appendix 6, it requires significantly less energy to bring treated wastewater to the campus than to bring domestic water to the campus, which in turn results in lower CO2e emissions. Additionally, between AY 12 and AY 14 AUC introduced conservation measures for domestic water such as installing water-saving plumbing fixtures. These measures reduced domestic water consumption (and corresponding CO2e emissions) in some campus buildings by as much as 35-40%. 1.6.2. Increased Emissions from Transportation (Commuting by Bus and Car) and from Use of Refrigerants

Transportation (Commuting by Bus and Car)

CO2e emissions from transportation increased by more than 25% overall15 between AY 12 and AY 14. Within the transportation sector, the most significant increase was in emissions from commuting by bus and car, which increased from 6,714 MT CO2e in AY 12 to 7,384 MT CO2e in AY 14, or by 10% (see Section 4.2 and Figure 6). Faced with a persistent need to subsidize the bus system operated by the University to the tune of $2 million annually, AUC during AY 14 implemented cutbacks in the bus service. The number of routes was reduced from 16 to 13, and there were cuts in the frequency of buses and hours of service as well. The consequence, as discussed more fully in Section 4.2.1, was a pronounced shift from commuting by bus, a fuel-efficient and thus carbon-efficient mode of transportation, to commuting by private car, which is neither fuel-efficient nor carbon-efficient. Indeed, according to the results of an online transportation survey conducted after the cutbacks in bus service, the number of AUC faculty, staff and students commuting by car increased by more than 40% compared to the number commuting by car in AY 12. Although the number of those commuting by car is still considerably smaller than the number of those commuting by bus, car commuters accounted for 5,598 MT CO2e or 76% of emissions from commuting in AY 14, compared to the 1,786 MT CO2e or 24% of AY 14 emissions from commuting by bus (see Section 4.2.1 and Figure 6). Despite the recent shift from buses, a sustainable mode of mass transportation, to unsustainable commuting by private , there are long-term reasons for optimism regarding emissions from commuting. First, AUCians have been reducing their daily commuting distances since AY 12 by moving closer to the New Cairo campus. As discussed in Section 4.1 and shown in Figure 5, more than two

15 Approximation based in part on more limited data available in AY 12.

8 thirds of AUC faculty, staff and students now live in the six Greater Cairo localities closest to the New Cairo campus. Second, as discussed in Section 4.2.1, efforts to encourage carpooling appear to be working. In AY 14 45% of those who commuted by car reported carpooling at least once a week, up from only 19% in AY 12. Refrigerants

Carbon emissions from use of refrigerants increased by 75 MT CO2e (13%) between FY 12 and FY 14. According to AUC’s Office of Facilities and Operations, the increase can be explained by an increase in the number of stand-alone air conditioning units that use refrigerants and by increased maintenance of equipment using refrigerants (see Section 6).

2. OVERALL METHODOLOGY AND ORGANIZATION OF REPORT

2.1. Reference Carbon Calculator AUC’s emission calculations are premised on the methodology used by Clean Air – Cool Planet Carbon Calculator (CA-CP) software.16 CA-CP is widely used by other universities and is frequently upgraded. It is an Excel workbook designed to quantify an annual aggregate carbon footprint. Once data is collected, verified, and formatted into proper units for entry, the software calculates emissions of carbon dioxide, and , the three commonly reported GHG emissions. CA-CP is based on workbooks and protocols provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the GHG Protocol Initiative, and the Climate Registry.

AUC’s carbon footprint team discovered that CA-CP’s methodology had to be modified and supplemented for AUC. For example, it was necessary to construct a number of emissions factors specific to Egypt, to Cairo, and to processes occurring uniquely at AUC’s central utility plant. Further, CA-CP does not account for carbon emissions attributable to water supply, an issue of significant concern in an arid country like Egypt. Ultimately, AUC’s carbon footprint team used CA-CP as a guide for constructing AUC’s own emissions calculator. Whenever , however, this report uses categories and methods of analysis similar to those used by CA-CP to facilitate comparisons with the numerous other schools relying on CA-CP.

2.2. Boundaries This report focuses exclusively on the New Cairo campus where the bulk of the University’s operations now take place.17 AUC’s original historic campus in Tahrir Square, as well as smaller remote or satellite facilities have consequently been excluded from this analysis.

2.3. Calculating Carbon Dioxide Equivalents (CO2e)

This report accounts for three of the six main GHGs: Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O). The main unit of measure is metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) (see Box 3), which is the most widely used reporting method. Carbon dioxide equivalents of CH4 and N2O are based on the (GWP) of each gas – which compares the amount of heat trapped by a similar mass of carbon dioxide. Methane has a GWP of 21 and nitrous oxide has a GWP of 310.18 Carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) are used here to express the relative global warming impact of each of the three greenhouse gases through a single unit of measure.

16 Clean Air-Cool Planet was established in 1999 as a non-profit organization and has published several versions of its carbon calculator software. To date, more than 1,000 universities in North America have used CA-CPCC to calculate their carbon footprints. CA-CPCC is the calculator most commonly used by signatories to the American College and University Presidents (ACUPCC). Additionally, most of AUC’s peer institutions in the U.S. have relied on CA-CPCC. 17 For example in AY 14, 87% of the energy consumed by the University as a whole was consumed at the New Cairo campus. (AUC Office of Facilities and Operations). 18UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2013.

9

Box 3: What does 1 metric ton of carbon dioxide look like by volume?

1 MT of carbon dioxide (CO2) in its gaseous form (as it is found in the earth’s atmosphere) fills a volume of approximately 557 m³, represented here by a sphere 10.07 meters in diameter. For another visual representation, see the cover page.

Source: http://www.carbonvisuals.com/blog/a-one- ton-time-bomb

2.4. Improved Methodologies, Data Collection and Data Analysis Since November 2013, when Our Carbon Footprint 2.0 covering AY 12 was published, AUC’s carbon footprint team has improved its methodologies, data collection and data analysis in a number of respects. Accordingly, in presenting three years of data (AY 12 through AY 14) as occurs in Sections 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12 of the current report, the carbon footprint team has recalculated carbon emissions for AY 12 in several subcategories.

In order to assist readers who are familiar with Our Carbon Footprint 2.0 (covering AY 12) and who wish to compare the AY 14 carbon emissions shown in this report with AY 12 carbon emissions on a consistent basis, Appendix 3 has been added to the current report. Appendix 3 shows AY 14 carbon emissions broken down by category and compared to AY 12 carbon emissions for each category as such AY 12 carbon emissions have been recalculated to reflect current (AY 14) methods and availability of data. Appendix 3 also shows decreases or increases in carbon emissions from AY 12 (as recalculated) to AY 14 for each category.

2.5. Organization of Report Sections 3 through 9 of this report analyze the number of metric tons of CO2e resulting from each of the principal activities at AUC giving rise to carbon emissions, in descending order of emissions: HVAC (Section 3); transportation (Section 4); electricity used for non-HVAC lighting and equipment (Section 5); refrigerants (Section 6); paper use (Section 7); and water supply (Section 8). Sections 9, 10 and 11 analyze the smaller, but still significant, carbon emissions resulting from disposal of solid waste, burning of natural gas for domestic and laboratory use and fertilizer used for campus landscaping. The detailed analysis of emissions in Sections 3 through 11 is followed in Section 12 by an analysis of carbon sequestration from campus landscaping and composting. The final two sections of the report, Sections 13 and 14, compare AUC’s energy use intensity (EUI) and emissions per FTE student to those of other universities in similar climates, and offer fifteen specific recommendations for further reducing AUC’s carbon footprint.

3. HEATING, VENTILATION, AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC) AND DOMESTIC HOT WATER

3.1. Summary As shown in Figure 1, 43.6% of AUC’s carbon emissions in AY 14, or 15,831.2 MT CO2e, were attributable to HVAC and domestic hot water. These services are produced by using natural gas, electricity, and water in various processes occurring at AUC’s central utility plant (see Appendix 2).

Electricity is used to power circulating chilled water throughout the campus for air conditioning and circulating hot water for heating and domestic hot water. Electricity is also used to power air handling units, variable air volume (VAV) units, and other equipment required for the HVAC system.

10

Air conditioning is AUC’s single largest sector of energy consumption and one of its biggest sources of carbon emissions.19 Chilled water for air conditioning is produced by absorption chillers at the central utility plant, using natural gas as fuel. The waste heat given off by the absorption chillers is removed by a circulating water system that releases the waste heat from five cooling towers through evaporation. In 2014, these cooling towers alone accounted for more than 23% of AUC’s total water use from May through October, the hottest months (see Section 8.2).

Hot water for heating and domestic hot water is produced in one of two ways. Whenever possible, hot exhaust fumes from gas-fired electricity generators are used to heat water in heat-recovery boilers (a process known as co-generation, described in Section 3.3.2 and Appendix 2). When the heat-recovery boilers are not sufficient for producing the volume of hot water needed at the temperature required, additional hot water is produced in conventional, gas-fired boilers.

3.2. Electricity for HVAC

3.2.1. Emissions

In AY 14, the University emitted an estimated 3,163 MT CO2e through the consumption of electricity purchased from the Cairo grid and supplied by the Egyptian Electricity Authority (EEA). An estimated

15,008 MT CO2e was emitted as a result of electricity produced at the central utility plant. Thus in AY 14 carbon emissions from electricity consumption totaled MT CO2e overall (see Figure 3a). Of this total, an estimated 55% or 9,994 MT CO2e, resulted from operation of the HVAC system.20

Emissions from Electricity, AY 12 through AY 14

25,000

19,762 19,513 20,000 18,171 19% 11% 17%

e Cairo Grid (EEA) 2 15,000

81% 89%

MT CO 10,000 83% Central Ulity Plant (GasCool) 5,000

0 AY 12 AY 13 AY 14

Figure 3a. Breakdown of emissions from electricity purchased from the Cairo Grid (EEA) and emissions from electricity generated in AUC’s own central utility plant (GasCool).

19 Cairo has nearly twice as many “cooling degree days” (a common measure of the need for air conditioning) as and nearly three times as many as City (Rosenthal, 2012). 20 The basis for attributing approximately 55% of electricity consumption, and thus approximately 55% of electricity-related carbon emissions to the operation of the HVAC system, is discussed in Appendix 2.

11

3.2.2. Declining Emissions from Electricity Consumption Fail to Keep Pace with Declining Electricity Consumption In AY 14, the University consumed 31,186,200 kWh of electricity, 25,235,000 kWh from its central utility plant and 5,951,200 kWh from the Cairo Grid. In AY 12, the University consumed 36,848,000 kWh of electricity, 29,448,800 kWh from its central utility plant and 7,399,200 kWh from the Cairo Grid. Thus between AY 12 and AY 14, AUC decreased its electricity consumption overall by nearly 15.5%. Yet during the same period, carbon emissions from electricity consumption fell by only 8% overall (see Figure 3a), barely half as much. What can account for this seeming discrepancy?

The key to the answer lies in the differing operating efficiencies of AUC’s two electricity providers: its own central utility plant and the Cairo Grid. The power plants that supply the Cairo Grid operate at a significantly higher efficiency than AUC’s central utility plant; the likely reasons are economies of scale (utility scale vs. the modest generating capacity of AUC’s central utility plant) and a somewhat dirtier, but more efficient fuel mix at the power plants supplying the Cairo Grid. More efficient operation means that less fuel is needed to produce a kWh of electricity, which in turn translates into a lower carbon coefficient for electricity supplied by the Cairo Grid and to correspondingly lower CO2e emissions per kWh of electricity consumed from the Cairo Grid.

Between AY 12 and AY 14 AUC decreased its electricity consumption significantly overall, but the reductions came disproportionately from the Cairo Grid. The University shifted consumption from the Cairo Grid to its own central utility plant in part to improve capacity utilization at its own plant, but also to benefit from the much lower price of electricity produced at its own plant compared to the price of electricity purchased from the Cairo Grid.

The carbon cost to AUC of shifting from a more efficient electricity provider (the Cairo Grid) to a less efficient electricity provider (its own central utility plant) is starkly illustrated by Figure 3b, particularly the segment of Figure 3b from AY 12 to AY 13 which shows rapidly declining electricity consumption accompanied by carbon emissions that barely budge. In AY 13 the University used 3.8 million fewer kWh of electricity than it used in AY 12, a more than 10% reduction in electricity consumption overall, but 3.35 million kWh of that reduction (88%) was at the expense of the Cairo Grid. As a consequence, a much higher proportion of AUC’s electricity consumption came from its own central utility plant, the less efficient provider, and despite the university’s commendable 10% reduction in electricity consumption overall between AY 12 and AY 13, its CO2e emissions from electricity consumption (see Figure 3a) decreased by only 1%!

Electricity Consumpon vs. Emissions, AY 12 through AY 14

38 25 36 34 Millions 32 e 2 30 Thousands 20 kWh

kWh 28 26 MTCO MTCO2e 24 22 20 15 AY 12 AY 13 AY 14

Figure 3b. Reductions in electricity consumption vs. related carbon emissions reductions.

12

3.2.3. Methodology We calculated emission factors for the Cairo Grid and the AUC central utility plant using the methods in Appendix 4.

Cairo Grid Emission factors for the energy inputs used to generate electricity are required to calculate the Cairo Grid emission factor. Emission factors are recalculated on a yearly basis to account for fuel and/or efficiency changes.

In the Cairo Zone, the fuel mix in AY 13 and AY 14 was 78.3% natural gas and 21.7% residual (high-density fuel oil, also known as No. 5 and No. 6 fuel oil).21 In AY 12, the fuel mix was 83.8% natural gas and 16.2% residual fuel oil.22

In AY 13 and AY 14, the efficiency of electricity production in the Cairo Zone was 41.19% (weighted average among the nine Greater Cairo power plants).23 In AY 12, the efficiency of electricity production in the Cairo Zone was 43.1%.24

AUC Central Utility Plant The AUC central utility plant uses 100% natural gas and produced electricity at an efficiency of 33.99% in AY 14. The plant produced electricity at an efficiency of 33.75% in AY 13 and an efficiency of 37.03% in AY 12.

For calculating the emission factor for the central utility plant’s electricity, the formula in Appendix 4 excludes residual fuel oil since none is used.

3.2.4. Data and Sources Data on electricity consumption was provided by AUC’s Office of Facilities and Operations based on monthly readings of AUC’s electric meters.

3.2.5. Emission Factors25

Source Mass Emissions (kgCO2e/kWh) Cairo Grid (EEA) 0.5315 Central Utility Plant (GasCool) 0.5947

21 Egypt Environmental Affairs Agency, 2012. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 See Appendix 4 for the calculation of these constructed values.

13

3.3. Chilled and Hot Water

Emissions from Chilled and Hot Water, AY 12 through AY 14

8000 7,719

7000 24% 6,193 5,857 6000 19% 17% 5000 e 2 4000 Hot Water 76% MT CO 81% 83% Chilled Water 3000

2000

1000

0 AY 12 AY 13 AY 14

Figure 4. Emissions from chilled and hot water consumption.26

3.3.1. Emissions

In AY 14, the University’s emissions were 5,857 MT CO2e from the consumption of chilled water for air conditioning and the consumption of hot water for heating and domestic hot water (see Figure 4). Of the total emissions, 4,849 MT CO2e (83%) can be attributed to consumption of chilled water and the remaining 1,008 MT CO2e (17%) to the consumption of hot water. AUC reduced its emissions from hot and chilled water consumption by 24% over the period AY 12 to AY 14.

3.3.2. Emissions Avoided Through Co-Generation As discussed in Section 1.5 and in Appendix 2, at AUC’s central utility plant two of the gas-fired electricity generators feed hot exhaust fumes to heat recovery boilers which produce hot water for heating and domestic hot water. In AY 14, approximately 49% of the hot water consumed was produced by co- generation and thus without burning additional natural gas. This saved 4,025,431 kWh of heat energy and the associated 983.95 MT of CO2e emissions had the same amount of hot water been produced by conventional gas-fired boilers. Thus, co-generation avoided approximately 49% of the carbon emissions that would have resulted had all of AUC’s hot water for heating and domestic hot water been produced by conventional gas-fired boilers in AY 14.

AUC’s total carbon footprint in AY 14 was approximately 2.7% smaller than it would otherwise have been without co-generation.

3.3.3. Consumption In total, the University consumed energy equivalent to 22,567,497.94 kWh in AY 14 for chilled and hot water produced by absorption chillers and by boilers at the central utility plant. Of the total, 18,416,366.93 kWh were attributable to chilled water, and the remaining 4,151,131.01 kWh to hot water. Between AY 12 and AY 14, energy consumption for chilled and hot water decreased by 24%.

3.3.4. Methodology We constructed emission factors for the production of chilled water by absorption chillers and hot water by gas-fired (conventional) boilers at the central utility plant (see Appendix 4 for calculations).

26 Emissions reported here for AY 12 vary from those reported in the previous carbon footprint report as a result of a change in the method of calculating plant efficiency.

14

3.3.5. Data Sources We obtained data on chilled and hot water use from AUC’s Office of Facilities and Operation’s monthly meter readings.

3.3.6. Emission Factors27 Source Mass Emissions (kgCO2e/kWh) 28 Hot Water Production (GasCool) 0.2444 Hot Water Production (Kahraba) 0.2238 Chilled Water Production (GasCool) 0.2633 Auxiliary Electricity 0.5827

4. TRANSPORTATION

4.1. Summary By moving its main operations from Downtown Cairo to the satellite city of New Cairo, located approximately 35 km from Cairo’s city center (see Appendix 1), AUC significantly increased the distances traveled by most of its faculty, students and staff to reach its campus. Thus it should not be surprising that in AY 14 over 20% of AUC’s carbon emissions are attributable to commuting to the New Cairo campus by bus or car (see Figure 1 and Section 4.2).

A positive trend is that AUC’s faculty, staff and students, perhaps in response to the difficulty of commuting long distances over Cairo’s congested roads and highways, appear to be moving closer to the New Cairo campus. In March 2012, only about 12% of the respondents to AUC’s online transportation survey lived in New Cairo or in El Rehab, the two localities closest to the New Cairo campus. However, according to the AUC online transportation survey conducted in October 2014, approximately 19% of the respondents now live in New Cairo or in El Rehab. Indeed, according to the October 2014 survey, more than two thirds of AUC faculty, staff and students now live in the six greater Cairo localities closest to the New Cairo campus (see Figure 5).29 In order to reach the New Cairo campus and return home in the evening, AUCians traveled an average of 64 km each day in AY 14.

Commung Routes and Distances for AUC Community, AY 14

25 80 70 20 60 15 50 40 10 30 5 20 % of Commuters 10 0 0 Distance One-Way Distance (km) Survey Respondents (%) Maadi Manial Shubra Sherouq Zamalek Nasr City Heliopolis Moqaam Downtown Giza/Haram 6th October Mohandessin Dokki/Agouza New Cairo/Rehab Helwan/May 15th

Figure 5. Commuting routes and distances for the AUC Community. 30

27 See Appendix 4 for the calculation of these constructed values. 28 The following emissions factors are for AY 14. 29 March 2012 and October 2014 online Transportation Sustainability and Safety survey. 30 Ibid.

15

To facilitate commuting, AUC contracts for bus service connecting the New Cairo campus to greater Cairo along 13 routes. Apart from this bus service there is no mass transportation connecting the New Cairo campus to Cairo’s neighborhoods. Most commuters who do not make use of the bus service reach the New Cairo campus by private car.

After daily commuting, AUC’s biggest source of carbon emissions from transportation is business air travel by faculty and staff who fly to destinations around the globe for meetings, conferences and research. Business air travel accounted for 6.3% of AUC’s carbon footprint in AY 14 (see Figure 1 and Section 4.3).

While most of AUC’s emissions from transportation are caused by daily commuting and business air travel, the University also operates a fleet of cars, vans/microbuses and light duty trucks for use by AUC personnel. The operation of the University fleet accounted for 1.7% of AUC’s carbon footprint in AY 14 (see Figure 1 and Section 4.4).

Finally, the University sponsors student field trips for educational purposes (generally by bus to destinations within Egypt). In AY 14 (see Figure 1 and Section 4.5), these trips accounted for 0.2% of AUC’s carbon footprint.

4.2. Commuting by Bus and Car; Carpooling

4.2.1. Emissions In AY 14, commuting to and from the New Cairo campus by bus and car contributed an estimated 7,383

MT CO2e of carbon emissions to AUC’s carbon footprint, which represents a 10% increase in emissions from AY 12 (see Figure 6). A principal reason for the increase in emissions from commuting between AY 12 and AY 14 is a pronounced shift from commuting by bus, a fuel-efficient and thus carbon- efficient mode of transportation, to commuting by private car, which is neither fuel-efficient nor carbon- efficient.

In AY 14 only 57% of faculty, staff and students reported usually taking the bus to campus, compared to 68% in AY 12.31 Among students, only 50% reported taking the bus in AY 14, compared to nearly 80% in AY 12.32 In contrast, in AY 14 43% of faculty, staff and students reported usually commuting to campus by car, compared to only 30% in AY 12.33 This represents an increase in car commuters of more than 40%.

The shift from bus to car commuting, reflected in the results of the October 2014 online transportation survey, most likely is a consequence of cutbacks in the university’s bus service that were implemented in June 2014. In an effort to reduce the financial burden of maintaining the heavily subsidized university bus system, the number of routes was decreased from 16 to 13 and there were cuts in the frequency of buses and the hours of service as well.

Breaking down the 7,383 MT CO2e of AY 14 emissions from bus and car commuting further, there are basically 3 types of vehicles used for commuting: full-size coach buses, microbuses and private cars.

31 March 2012 and October 2014 online Transportation Sustainability and Safety surveys. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid.

16

Bus service to and from campus for faculty, students and administrative staff accounted for 1,990,981 km traveled in AY 14. Emissions from this bus service are estimated to be 1,309 MT CO2e. Of the total, full- size diesel coaches produced 983 MT CO2e with the remaining 325 MT CO2e produced by microbuses (see Figure 6).

Emissions from Commung, AY 12 through AY 14

10,000 9,000 8,000 7,383 6,714 6,565 6% 7,000 4% 7% 7% Gate 2 Buses e 6% 13% 2 6,000 6% 14% Microbus 5,000 18% 76%

MT CO 73% 4,000 68% Coach Bus 3,000 Private Car 2,000 1,000 0 AY 12 AY 13 AY 14

Figure 6. Emissions from commuting to and from AUC’s New Cairo campus.

Additional bus service is provided for non-administrative staff and security guards, using a mix of full-size coaches and microbuses. This bus service, known as the “Gate 2 Buses,” produced emissions of 477 MT

CO2e in AY 14 (see Figure 6).34

Turning now to commuting by car, those commuting by private car drove an estimated 23,246,177 km in AY 14. 67% of the private car km were traveled by students. We estimated that emissions from private car commuting are 5,598 MT CO2e, or 76% of all emissions attributable to commuting in AY 14 (see

Figure 6). Of the private car commuting total, students account for 3,765 MT CO2e with the remaining

1,833 MT CO2e attributable to faculty and staff.

Although bus ridership has declined, carpooling among AUC faculty, staff and students has increased significantly since AY 12. Carpooling is a well-known method for taking cars off the road and reducing fuel consumption, pollution and carbon emissions, essentially by making one car do the work of two, three or four cars. It also helps to reduce the traffic congestion that is ubiquitous in Greater Cairo. In late AY 12 the University adopted a policy of waiving on-campus parking fees for carpoolers.

Free parking for carpoolers, and other efforts to promote carpooling such as a carpooling website, appear to be having the desired effect: the incidence of carpooling increased to 45% of those who commuted by car in AY 14, up from 19% in AY 12.35 Without carpooling, emissions from car commuting in AY 14 could have been up to 50% higher, i.e. 8,343 MT CO2e).36

34 Emissions from AY 13 and AY 14 are the same, because the Gate 2 bus schedule and service were essentially unchanged. 35 March 2012 and October 2014 online Transportation Sustainability and Safety surveys. Respondents are considered carpoolers if they report that they carpool at least once a week. 36 Based on a hypothetical scenario where emissions were calculated assuming no carpooling.

17

4.2.2. Methodology The AUC transportation website displays the 13 current bus routes on Google Maps and calculates trip lengths. The number of times each route was driven during each year was multiplied by the route’s trip length to estimate the annual kilometers traveled by full-size diesel coach buses and microbuses. These kilometer totals were then multiplied by the pertinent emission factors provided below.

Unlike in AY 12 (the year covered by AUC’s last carbon footprint report), AUC’s Department of Transportation Services now collects bus trip data daily. This provides more accurate measurements of distances traveled. Even so, the results presented for AY 12 through AY 14 are estimates, since there are still some gaps in the data that require interpolation from known data.

Regarding the distances traveled by those commuting in cars, RISE in partnership with AUC’s Office of Sustainability and Office of Data Analytics and Institutional Research conducted a follow-up online survey in October 2014. The 2,126 responses were used to estimate total annual car commuting distances (in kilometers) for AUC faculty, staff and students.37

Total annual car commuting distances (in km) were adjusted for carpooling in accordance with survey responses and further adjusted for lower commuting populations during winter session, summer session and University breaks and holidays. The adjusted kilometer totals were then multiplied by the pertinent emission factors provided below.

4.2.3. Data Sources Data on bus commuting was provided by the AUC Department of Transportation Services. Data on car commuting was acquired through university-wide online transportation surveys.

4.2.4. Emission Factors38

Source Mass Emissions (kgCO2e/km) Average Gasoline Vehicle (Car) 0.2408 Average Diesel Vehicle (Van/Microbus/Light Duty 0.3696 Truck) Diesel Bus (Coach) 0.8854

4.3. Air Travel

4.3.1. Emissions Business air travel by faculty and staff totaled 25,954,980 passenger kilometers (pass. km) in AY 13 and 23,776,974 pass. km in AY 14, resulting in an estimated 2,387 MT CO2e emissions in AY 13 and 2,281 MT CO2e in AY 14. Long haul air travel accounted for 95% of the distance traveled and 93% (804.9 MT CO2e) of the total GHG emissions (see Figures 7 and 8).

37 Respondents who commuted by bike, motorbike, and walking were disregarded in this calculation, but they represent less than 1% of commuters. 38 Converted values from EIA, 2011 and EPA, 2012.

18

AUC Business Flight Types, AY 13 and AY 14

6% Long-Haul Trips 28% Medium-Haul Trips

66% Short-Haul Trips

Figure 7. Short, medium and long haul business-related flights taken by the AUC Community.

Emissions from Business Air Travel, AY 13 and AY 14

3000 2387 2500 2281

e 2000 2 Long Haul 1500 Medium Haul 95% 94% MT CO 1000 Short Haul 500 0 4% 5% AY 13 AY 14

Figure 8. Comparison of CO2e emissions resulting from business air travel, AY13 and AY14.

4.3.2. Methodology The University Travel Office coordinates business travel. All business flights booked through the travel office are compiled in a database. Only business (vs. personal) flights were examined. Flight distances were obtained preliminarily from third party travel agents, then verified against great circle routes. After determining the km traveled, each flight was classified for emission factor purposes by its length (short, medium or long haul) and its booking class (first, business or economy). For emission factor purposes, flights were subdivided into short haul (≤785 km), medium haul (between 785 km and 3,700 km) and long haul (≥3,700 km).39 The total km for each flight category was then multiplied by the pertinent emissions factor.40

4.3.3. Data Sources Data provided by the AUC Travel Office from third party providers.

4.3.4. Emission Factors41 Mass Emissions (kgCO2e/passenger km) Source Short Haul Medium Haul Long Haul First Class 0.15504 -- 0.31837 Business Class 0.15504 0.12560 0.23082 Economy Class 0.15504 0.08373 0.07960

39 Ecometria, 2014. 40 Business air travel data for AY 12 was subsequently found to be incomplete and therefore AY 12 has been excluded from this report. 41 Defra/DECC, 2014.

19

4.4. University Fleet

4.4.1. Emissions The University operates a fleet of 99 vehicles (70 gasoline cars, 29 diesel light duty vehicles), for transportation of University personnel and other daily operations. Emissions from the gasoline vehicle fleet are 514 MT CO2e; and from the diesel fleet 110 MT CO2e in AY 14 (see Figure 9). The total emissions from the University vehicle fleet in AY 14 are 624 MT CO2e. Even though the fleet size decreased by 17% from AY 13 to AY 14, emissions increased by 5%, up from 592 MT CO2e the previous year, due to increases in km traveled.42

Emissions from AUC Vehicle Fleet, AY 13 and AY 14

800 700 624 592 600 18% 21% e

2 500 82% Diesel Vehicles 400 79%

MT CO 300 Gasoline Vehicles 200 100 0 AY13 AY14

Figure 9. Carbon emissions caused by AUC’s fleet of vehicles.43

4.4.2. Methodology Emission factors were based on the types of vehicles and the liters of fuel consumed.

For the gasoline fleet, consisting almost entirely of cars, an average emission factor for gasoline cars was used. For the diesel fleet, made up almost entirely of microbuses, an average emission factor for diesel light duty trucks (vans) was used. Total amounts of fuel used were multiplied by their respective emission factors.

4.4.3. Data Sources We obtained data for the University fleet from AUC’s Department of Transportation Services.

4.4.4. Emission Factors44 Source Mass Emissions (kgCO2e/L of fuel used) Average Gasoline Vehicle (Car) 2.3632 Average Diesel Vehicle (Van/Microbus/Light Duty 2.6832 Truck)

4.5. Sponsored Field Trips

4.5.1. Emissions As a result of improving security in Egypt outside Cairo, University sponsored field trips have increased significantly since AY 12. The University sponsored a number of field trips within Egypt in AY 14, resulting in an estimated 84,645 km of travel by bus. Total emissions resulting from these field trips are 75

42 Gasoline vehicles traveled an additional 100,000 km in AY 14 and diesel vehicles traveled an additional 70,000 km. 43 AY 12 is excluded from University Fleet because emissions calculations were based on kilometers traveled rather than liters of fuel used. 44 Converted value from Energy Information Administration, 2011 and Environmental Protection Agency, 2013.

20

MT CO2e. This reflects a 186% increase in the number of trips and represents a 314% increase in emissions resulting from sponsored field trips between AY 12 and AY 14. 45

4.5.2. Methodology Distances to destinations were estimated using Google Maps with the departure point assumed to be AUC’s New Cairo campus. Where the final destination was a city, distance was measured to the city center. It was assumed that travel was by full-size bus using diesel fuel, since this is the most commonly used method of transportation for field trips.

4.5.3. Data Sources We obtained data on field trips from the AUC’s Office of Public Safety.

4.5.4. Emission Factors46 Source Mass Emissions (kgCO2e/km traveled) Diesel Bus (Coach) 0.8854

5. ELECTRICITY FOR LIGHTING AND OTHER EQUIPMENT (NON-HVAC)

5.1. Summary As discussed in Section 3 and Appendix 2, it is estimated that 55% of all electricity consumed by AUC in AY 14 was used to operate the HVAC system. The other 45% was used for lighting, office equipment and other electrical equipment (non-HVAC). The electricity used to power lighting, office equipment and other electrical equipment (non-HVAC) accounted for 22.5% of AUC’s carbon emissions in AY 14 (see Figure 1).

5.2. Emissions

In total, AUC emitted 18,171 MT CO2e from electricity use in AY 14, of which 8,177 MT CO2e resulted from the use of lighting and other electrical equipment.47

6. REFRIGERANTS

6.1. Emissions The University uses two types of refrigerants for refrigerators and for stand-alone air conditioning units: R22 (HCFC-22), amounting to 256.5 kg in AY 14, and R407c, amounting to 115 kg in AY 14. Total emissions from refrigerants (see Figure 10) were 640 MT CO2e in AY 14, i.e. the sum of emissions from R22 (464 MT CO2e) and emissions from R407c (175 MT CO2e).

Between AY 12 and AY 14 emissions from refrigerants increased 13% as a result of increased maintenance activities and an increase in the number of stand-alone air conditioning units.

45 Due to missing data, no information is available for AY 13. 46 Converted value from EIA, 2011 and EPA, 2013. 47 For methodology, assumptions, data sources and emission factors for electricity, see Section 3.2.

21

Emissions from Refrigerants, AY 12 through AY 14

700 640 565 600 27% 500 430

e 35% 2 400 20% 73% R407c 300 65%

MT CO 80% R22 200 100 0 AY12 AY13 AY14

Figure 10. Emissions from refrigerants R22 and R407c.

6.2. Methodology The amounts of refrigerants lost to leakage or unintended releases were calculated by determining the amounts of refrigerants added to “top-up” the refrigerants. These amounts were then multiplied by the respective emissions factors.

6.3. Data Sources We obtained information on refrigerants from AUC’s Office of Facilities and Operations.

6.4. Emission Factors Source Mass Emissions (kgCO2e/kg) R2248 1,810 R407c49 1,526

7. PAPER USE

7.1. Emissions

The University purchased an estimated 194,431 kg of paper products in AY 14. The emissions from paper purchases for the New Cairo campus total 544 MT CO2e (see Figure 11). This represents a 21% decrease in the emissions from paper between AY 12 and AY 14. For reasons yet to be fully explained, paper consumption has been declining steadily since AUC moved to the New Cairo campus in the fall of 2008.

48 Pachauri, R.K. and Resigner, A., IPCC, 2013. 49 IPCC, 2006.

22

Emissions from Paper Use, AY 12 through AY 14

800 691 700 599 600 544 e

2 500 400

MT CO 300 200 100 0 AY 12 AY 13 AY 14

Figure 11. Emissions from University paper use.

7.2. Methodology The research team reviewed all paper purchase invoices, and weighed samples of each type of paper. More than 99% of the paper AUC purchases is uncoated, hence we decided to use the uncoated paper emission factor for all paper. None of the paper used at AUC is recycled in origin.

7.3. Data Sources We obtained information on paper purchases from the Office of Supply Chain Management and Business Support, which in the ordinary course of business maintains records of quantities and types of paper purchased.

7.4. Emission Factors50

Source Mass Emissions (MT CO2e/MT of paper) Uncoated Paper 2.8

8. WATER SUPPLY

8.1. Introduction: The Energy-Water Nexus Energy and water supply at AUC are intimately connected. The New Cairo campus is located on an elevated desert plain east of central Cairo. In order to supply domestic (drinking quality) water to AUC from the Ismailiya Canal northeast of Cairo, water must not only be purified, but it must be pumped across a distance of 54.45 km up inclines totaling 308 m. The key point is that reducing our water consumption, whether for the AC cooling towers, for irrigation of campus landscaping, or for domestic use in buildings, reduces the energy consumption we are responsible for and thus reduces our carbon footprint in addition to saving scarce water. This section will address each of our principal water use sectors in turn.

8.2. Emissions

8.2.1. Overview In AY 14 the University consumed 94,604 m3 of water for the AC cooling towers, 117,685 m3 for use in buildings and 316,708 m3 for irrigation, for a total of 528,997 m3. The carbon emissions resulting from

50 Accounts for entire paper lifecycle, Environmental Paper Network, 2012.

23 this consumption amount to 540.2 MT CO2e. Of this total, 128 MT CO2e or 24% can be attributed to the AC cooling towers, 156 MT CO2e or 29% can be attributed to consumption for domestic use in buildings, and the remaining 256 MT CO2e or 47% can be attributed to irrigation (see Figure 12).

Significantly, the University’s decision in AY 12 to use treated wastewater (a form of recycled water) for irrigation has resulted in savings of 16% of emissions that would otherwise be attributable to water, compared to the emissions that would have resulted from continuing to use domestic water for irrigation (see Section 7.3).

Between AY 12 and AY 14 AUC decreased its water consumption by 11% and its emissions from supplying water to the New Cairo campus by 25%. The decrease in emissions has outpaced the decrease in consumption, largely because of the substitution of treated wastewater for domestic water; as shown in Appendices 5 and 6, much less energy is needed to bring treated wastewater to the New Cairo campus than is needed to bring the equivalent amount of domestic water.

8.2.2. Water for AC Cooling Towers The gas-driven chillers that produce chilled water for air conditioning generate waste heat. The waste heat is dissipated through a circulating water system that releases it from six cooling towers through evaporation. The consumption of domestic water for air conditioning increases considerably during the hot summer months (May through October), exceeding at times 23% of the university’s total monthly water use (see Figure 13). We calculated carbon emissions resulting from the use of domestic water for the AC cooling towers by multiplying the volume of water consumed by the electricity required to bring each cubic meter of water to the New Cairo campus (see Section 7.3), then applying the emission factor (see Section 7.5) for electricity obtained from the Cairo grid.

Emissions Distribuon for Water by Type of Use, AY 12 through AY 14

800 721 700 620 600 540 49% 500 40% e

2 Irrigaon 400 47% Buildings MT CO 300 AC Cooling Towers 32% 40% 200 29%

100 19% 20% 24% 0 AY12 AY13 AY14

Figure 12. Emissions distribution for water by type of use.

24

AC Cooling Towers as Proporon of Total Monthly Water Consumpon, AY 12 through AY 14

60000

3 40000 m 20000 0 Jul-12 Jul-14 Jan-12 Jan-14 Jun-12 Jun-14 Oct-11 Oct-13 Sep-11 Sep-13 Apr-12 Apr-14 Dec-11 Dec-13 Feb-12 Feb-14 Aug-12 Aug-14 Nov-11 Nov-13 Mar-12 Mar-14 May-12 May-14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Water used for A/C Cooling Towers Water used for Buildings and Irrigaon

Figure 13. Proportion of water used for air conditioning (AC) cooling towers (of total monthly water consumption).

8.3. Methodology for Calculating Carbon Emissions Attributable to Domestic Water Supply and Treated Wastewater Supply

AUC has continued to improve management of its water supply since AY 12. Most significant is the expanded use of treated wastewater for irrigation. Recycling water in this manner not only helps alleviate regional water scarcity but results in energy savings and fewer carbon emissions, due principally to a lower energy “pumping factor” for each cubic meter of treated wastewater compared to domestic water.

Chemonics Egypt has contributed to AUC’s carbon footprint reports by mapping the domestic water supply route from the original source and analyzing energy consumption en route. Chemonics concluded that 2.55 kWh of electricity are required to bring each cubic meter of domestic water from the Ismailiya Canal to the New Cairo campus (see Appendix 5). After AUC switched to using treated wastewater for irrigation, Chemonics generously undertook a second study, this time of the New Cairo municipal wastewater treatment system, and determined that the energy needed to deliver treated wastewater to the New Cairo campus is only 1.49 kWh/m3 (see Appendix 6), a savings in energy consumption from that of domestic water of more than 40% and a comparable savings in carbon emissions.51

The University also improved its own water consumption data collection and management practices between AY 12 and AY 14. Through examining water meter readings and producing detailed monthly records of both domestic and treated wastewater consumption, we determined that treated wastewater accounted for approximately 58% of AUC’s total water consumption in AY 14 and domestic water the remaining 42%. Thanks to lower energy consumption per m3 for treated wastewater, however, carbon emissions for the two types of water in AY 14 were exactly the inverse: Domestic water accounted for 58% of emissions while only 42% of emissions are attributable to treated wastewater (see Figure 14).

51 The Chemonics Egypt studies of energy consumption for domestic water supply and treated wastewater supply were conducted in 2011 and 2012, respectively. Since there has been no significant change in how either type of water is being supplied to the campus, we have continued to rely on the Chemonics findings in calculating emissions from water supply.

25

Emissions by Type of Water, AY 12 through AY 14

900

800 721 700 7% 620 600 93% 540 e

2 Treated Wastewater 500 33% 400 42% MT CO 67% Domesc (Drinking Quality) 300 Water 58% 200 100 0 AY12 AY13 AY14

Figure 14. Emissions from supplying domestic water and treated wastewater.

8.4. Data Sources The total consumption of water by the University is based on water meter readings for all water used on campus, including water used for domestic consumption in buildings, irrigation, and the cooling towers. We obtained energy consumption factors for water delivery to the New Cairo campus from Chemonics Egypt and data on University water consumption from AUC’s Office of Facilities and Operations.

8.5. Emission Factors Source Mass Emissions (kg CO2e/kWh) Cairo Grid (Electricity) 52 0.5315

9. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

9.1. Emissions We estimate that the University produced 608 MT of solid waste in AY 14. As the only emission from solid waste is methane (CH4), this tonnage of waste would have resulted in emissions of 25 MT CH4 if landfilled. With methane’s global warming potential (see Section 2.3), 517 MT CO2e would have been emitted from solid waste disposal in AY 14 if the waste had simply been landfilled.

However, the solid waste produced on campus is collected daily by the Zabaleen, the trash collecting community in Cairo. Based on interviews with a representative of the Zabaleen and a representative of The Spirit of Youth Association (an Egyptian NGO that collaborates with the Zabaleen)53 and based as well on a review of the recent literature on recycling by the Zabaleen54, we estimate that at least 75% of all solid waste collected by the Zabaleen is recycled, not landfilled. Accordingly, AUC emitted 129.25 MT CO2e from solid waste disposal in AY 14, representing the 25% of solid waste produced by the University that was ultimately landfilled, not recycled.

9.2. Methodology In order to estimate the tonnage of solid waste produced in AY 14, two one-week sampling assessments were conducted. Waste leaving campus was weighed every day for one week during a non-peak time

52 AY 14, based on EEA Annual Report 2012-13. 53 Eid, 2015; Ezzat, N.G., 2012. 54 Didero, 2012; Kuppinger, 2013; Kingsley, 2014.

26

(summer term) and a peak time (fall semester). Solid waste tonnages were measured by weighing the trash trucks when loaded and when empty, then calculating the differences in weights.

Throughout the year, and even throughout the week, there are days of low population density on campus (less than half the student body and fluctuating amounts of staff and faculty) and days of high population density (most students, staff, and faculty are present). Based on the University’s academic calendars and online transportation surveys, we estimate that the New Cairo campus is lightly populated 31% of the time and densely populated 69% of the time. This fluctuation causes variation in the amount of solid waste produced per day. To account for this difference, a yearly average was calculated.

9.3. Data Sources Data on the amounts of solid waste produced were provided by AUC’s Office of Facilities and Operations and the Zabaleen.

9.4. Emission Factors55 Source Mass Emissions (kgCO2e/MT) Solid Waste (No CH4 Recovery, e.g. methane bio- 842.1 gas production)

10. NATURAL GAS FOR DOMESTIC AND LAB USE

10.1. Emissions The total natural gas consumption for the New Cairo campus for domestic and lab use was 13,962 m3 in AY 14, down from 15,571 m3 in AY 13. The University emitted 31 MT CO2e from these type of natural gas combustion in AY 14, slightly less than in AY 13 (34.8 MT CO2e), and much less than the 43.5 MT CO2e emitted in AY 12. Between AY 12 and AY 14, natural gas consumption and emissions decreased by 28%.

10.2. Methodology The amount of natural gas for domestic and lab use was determined by calculating the difference between total natural gas consumption on campus and consumption by the central utility plant.

10.3. Data Sources We obtained data on natural gas consumption and consumption for domestic and lab use from AUC’s Office of Facilities and Operations, based on gas meter readings and estimates.

10.4 Emission Factors56 Source Mass Emissions (kgCO2e/ m3) Natural Gas 2.2363

11. FERTILIZER

11.1. Summary For its campus landscaping needs, AUC uses a mix of organic fertilizer (compost produced by the University on campus from landscape waste and purchased compost) and purchased synthetic fertilizer. Synthetic fertilizer is responsible for higher carbon emissions because of its higher nitrogen content. Compost has three advantages: (1) lower carbon emissions when used as fertilizer, (2) sequestration of carbon emissions that would have resulted from landscape waste if the landscape waste was left to decay naturally (see Section 12); and (3) improvement of quality by increasing water retention, thus reducing the need for irrigation water and reducing the carbon emissions associated with supplying irrigation water (see Section 8).

55 Converted from IPCC, 2006, Smith et al., 2001 and Ecometrica, 2014. 56 IPCC, 2006.

27

In this section we will address carbon emissions from use of synthetic fertilizer and organic fertilizer (compost).

11.2. Emissions In AY 14, for New Cairo campus landscaping, AUC used 10 metric tons of solid synthetic fertilizers and 3,350 liters of liquid synthetic fertilizers with nitrogen contents ranging from 19% to 46%, and 195 metric tons of organic fertilizer (produced and purchased compost) with a nitrogen content of 0.16%. We calculated that emissions from solid and liquid synthetic fertilizers totaled 15 MT CO2e in AY 14 and from organic fertilizer (produced and purchased compost) 1 MT CO2e. In total, 16 MT CO2e were emitted as a result of fertilizer application on the New Cairo campus (see Figure 15).

Emissions from Ferlizer by Type, AY 12 through AY 14

20 18 17 16 16 16 5% 9% 8% 14 95% 91% 92% e

2 12 10 Organic

MT CO 8 Synthec 6 4 2 0 AY 12 AY 13 AY 14

Figure 15. Emissions from the application of synthetic and organic fertilizers.

11.3. Methodology The amounts of synthetic fertilizer and organic fertilizer (compost) used were multiplied by their respective percentages of nitrogen to obtain the amounts of nitrogen applied. In the cases of nitric and humic acid liquid fertilizers, the nitrogen density of the solution was multiplied by the volume applied. The amounts of nitrogen applied were then multiplied by the conversion factor below in order to determine the amounts of nitrous oxide (N2O, a greenhouse gas) emitted. Finally, the amount of N2O emissions from each source was multiplied by 310, the global warming potential (GWP) of nitrous oxide, to determine the CO2 equivalent emissions.

11.4. Emissions Savings from Reduced Use of Synthetic Fertilizers

Emissions from fertilizer application would have been approximately 72 MT CO2e greater in AY 14 if compost had not been used and more synthetic fertilizers had been used instead. The University produced and used 120 tons of compost on campus to avoid emitting 55 MT CO2e from use of synthetic fertilizers, and purchased and used an additional 75 tons of compost to avoid emitting the remaining 17

MT CO2e from use of synthetic fertilizers. “Displaced Synthetic Fertilizer” in Section 11.6 refers to emissions avoided by using organic compost instead of synthetic fertilizers.57

11.5. Data Sources Data on synthetic and organic fertilizer use was obtained from the Department of Facilities and Operations, which is responsible for the landscaping of AUC’s New Cairo campus. The nitrogen content

57 Hermann, B.G. et al., 2011.

28 of synthetic fertilizers was taken from information provided on the fertilizer packages. The nitrogen content of purchased compost was taken from information provided on the compost packaging. The nitrogen content of organic fertilizer produced from landscaping waste on campus was determined by AUC’s Department of Facilities and Operations through its own laboratory testing.

11.6. Emission and Other Relevant Factors Source Conversion Factor

Synthetic/Organic Fertilizer58 0.0125 kg N2O/kg N Displaced Synthetic Fertilizer 260

12. LANDSCAPING AND COMPOSTING AS CARBON OFFSETS

12.1. Summary Carbon sequestration is the capture and removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in a stable, long- term and is a direct offset of other carbon emissions. “Direct offset” means that sequestered carbon may be subtracted from the CO2e total in calculating carbon footprints.59 In this report, a total of

170 MT CO2e has been subtracted from the CO2e total in calculating AUC’s carbon footprint for AY 14 (See Figure 1, Footnote 1, Figure 16 and Figure 17).

AUC captures and sequesters CO2 from the atmosphere through landscaping, which absorbs CO2 through , and through soil storage from composting landscape waste such as pruned tree branches and grass cuttings. If a plant is allowed to decompose naturally, anaerobically, a portion of the carbon sequestered by the plant through photosynthesis will be released back into the atmosphere. This release can be avoided through the carbon capture technique of aerobic composting. 60

12.2. Emissions Sequestered from Landscaping

For AY 14, we estimated that the landscaping on the New Cairo Campus sequestered 99 MT CO2e from the atmosphere. Of this total, 79 MT CO2e were sequestered by campus trees and 19 MT CO2e were sequestered by groundcover including grass and shrubs (see Figure 16). Between AY 12 and AY 14, carbon sequestration from landscaping increased by 30%. The large increase is attributable to the movement of 337 trees from a farm operated by the University to a newly established nursery on the campus.

Emissions Offsets from Landscaping, AY 12 through AY 14

150 130 102 110 99

e 19% 2 90 76 20% All Other Vegetaon 70 23% 81% 80% Trees MT CO 50 77% 30 10

-10 AY 12 AY 13 AY 14 Figure 16. Emissions offsets from carbon sequestration by campus landscaping.

58 Environmental Protection Agency, 2013. 59 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2012. 60 When organic waste such as pruned tree branches and grass cuttings is left in place to decompose naturally, it decomposes anaerobically (without oxygen) and produces greenhouse gases. Creating compost from organic waste provides a way for the waste to decompose aerobically, as compost piles are turned and aerated, thereby sequestering carbon and reducing the greenhouse gases that otherwise would have been emitted. (Valentine, 2014).

29

12.3. Methodology for Landscaping The Landscape Unit of the Facilities and Operations Office estimates that there are 7,847 trees planted on campus, of which 1,067 are date palms (Phoenix dactylifera). The remaining 6,780 trees are comprised of a variety of species, with valencia orange trees (Citrus sinensis) making up the majority. Therefore, we assumed that all of the remaining 6,780 trees were valencia orange trees. Additionally, there are approximately 17 acres of ground cover on the campus.

Tree quantities multiplied by the pertinent emissions offsets rates in Section 12.8 results in a carbon emissions sequestered by trees. Amount of ground cover multiplied by the pertinent emissions offsets rate in Section 12.8 results in the carbon emissions sequestered by ground cover.

12.4. Data Sources The rate of carbon sequestration by date palms was obtained from a USDA Forest Service urban tree carbon calculator61 and the rate of sequestration by orange trees was taken from a 2012 study on the sequestration potential of tree plantations62. All data regarding landscaping and composting at AUC’s New Cairo Campus was provided by the Landscape Unit of the Office of Facilities and Operations.

12.5. Carbon Sequestration through Composting As noted in Section 12.1, aerobic composting captures carbon from organic matter such as pruned tree branches and grass cuttings that would otherwise decompose naturally (anaerobically) and release previously sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. Mixing compost with the soil, i.e. burying it underground, completes the carbon sequestration process and is commonly known as “soil storage.”63 “Compost Transportation and Production” in Section 12.8 refers to the emissions from diesel fuel used to transport compost and turn over its piles.64

The total emissions avoided by the use of compost were calculated by multiplying the amount of University-produced and deployed compost by the appropriate factors in Section 12.8.

12.6. Data Sources All data for landscaping and composting at AUC’s New Cairo Campus was provided by the Landscape Unit of the Facilities and Operations Office.

12.7. Total Emissions Sequestered from Landscaping and Composting

AY 14’s total of 170 MT CO2e of sequestered carbon from landscaping and composting is a more than 50% increase from AY 12. (see Figure 17). The increase in sequestered carbon between AY 12 and AY 14 is largely attributable to planting more trees and ground cover on campus and to producing and using more compost.65

61 Center for Urban Forest Research Pacific Southwest Research Station, 2011. 62 Kongsager et al., 2012. 63 This factor only applies to compost produced by the University, however, because the sequestering of emissions during the production of commercial compost, though real, is not directly attributable to the University. 64 This emission factor is presented as a negative value in Section 12.8 since it represents an increase in emissions. 65 While the University’s landscaping sequesters some carbon from the atmosphere, the considerable energy costs associated with the planting, maintenance and irrigation of campus trees and ground cover in a desert environment most likely result in net positive emissions from this sector.

30

Total Mass Emission Savings from Landscaping and Composng, AY 12 through AY 14

193 200 180 170 160 140 53% 112 e

2 120 58% 100 Landscaping

MT CO 80 68% 47% Composng 60 42% 40 20 32% 0 AY 12 AY 13 AY 14

Figure 17. Total emissions offsets from landscaping and composting.

12.8. Sequestration Factors

Landscaping

Source Annual Emissions Offsets (kg CO2e/Unit) Date Palm 6.3/tree Valencia Orange 10.7/tree Groundcover 1,172/acre

Composting Source66 Annual Emissions Offsets (kg CO2e/MT compost) Soil Storage through Composting 240 Compost Transportation and Production - 40

13. AUC’S ENERGY USE INTENSITY (EUI) AND CARBON EMISSIONS/FTE STUDENT COMPARED TO AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES IN SIMILAR CLIMATES 13.1. AUC’s Energy Use Intensity (EUI) Compared to American Universities in Similar Climates Since campus energy consumption is the main determinant of AUC’s carbon footprint and a key determinant of university footprints generally, we compared AUC’s energy use intensity (EUI), a widely used measure of energy performance, to the EUIs of nine American universities that operate in similar climates. EUI is the measurement of an institution’s annual energy consumption (in the United States, often expressed in million BTU’s) as a function of its size (in the U.S., usually measured in gross square feet).67 EUI is particularly useful for comparing the energy performance of functionally similar entities.68

66 Environmental Protection Agency, 2013. 67 In this report, EUI expresses the University’s energy use per year (MMBTU) as a function of the University’s total square footage (f2). Energy Star, 2013. 68 Ibid.

31

As noted above in Figure 1 and Section 3.1, in AUC’s case 43.6% of the University’s AY 14 carbon emissions are attributable to HVAC and domestic hot water. Moreover, air conditioning is AUC’s single largest sector of energy consumption and one of its biggest sources of carbon emissions. Accordingly, for purposes of EUI comparisons we focused on institutions operating in hot dry climates similar to New Cairo’s. The nine institutions whose EUIs are compared with AUC’s in Figure 18 below are all located in IECC/ASHR climate zones 2B or 3B69, the “hot-dry”70 U.S. climate zones most similar to Cairo’s climate. The energy consumption and gross square footage of each institution compared to AUC in Figure 18 is taken from its most recent report to the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment. The energy consumption and gross square footage of AUC in AY 14 were obtained from AUC’s Office of Facilities and Operations.

Energy Use Intensity (EUI) of Universies in Hot-Dry Climates (MMBTU/f2) as of AY 14

0.300

0.250

0.200

0.150

0.100

0.050

0.000 Loyola UC San UNevada Arizona Pomona American UCLA UC Irvine UC Davis U. of Marymount Diego Las Vegas State – University in Arizona – (Los Angeles) Phoenix Cairo Tucson

Figure 18: Energy Use Intensity (EUI) of Universities in Hot-Dry Climates as of AY 14.

13.2. Carbon Emissions per FTE Student Another useful way to compare AUC to other universities is by carbon emissions per Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) student.71 Again, the most germane comparison is to universities operating in similar climate zones. Accordingly, Table 2 compares AUC to the same nine institutions located in hot-dry U.S. climate zones, but on the basis of carbon emissions per FTE student. The energy consumption and student enrollment of each institution compared to AUC in Figure 18 is taken from its most recent report to the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment. The energy consumption and student enrollment of AUC in AY 14 were obtained from AUC’s Office of Facilities and Operations and its Office of Data Analytics and Institutional Research, respectively.

69 International Energy Conservation Code, 2009; American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 2014. 70 Office of Energy Efficiency and , US Department of Energy. 71 In AUC’s case, this includes full-time students plus part-time students (counted as half of full-time students). See Section 1.4 and Table 1.

32

Total Total Emissions Total Student Institution Report Year Emissions (MTCO2e) / Enrollment (MTCO2e) FTE University of Nevada – Las Vegas 2008 21,841 85,878 3.9 2014 76,376 302,789 4.0 Loyola Marymount – Los Angeles 2011 7,187 29,356 4.1 The American University in 2014 5,905 36,102 6.1 Cairo University of California – Irvine 2012 26,500 165,776 6.3 University of Arizona – Tucson 2010 38,076 253,723 6.6 University of California – San 2013 29,517 260,047 8.8 Diego University of California – Los 2013 42,190 382,529 9.4 Angeles University of California – Davis 2013 28,208 267,169 9.5 Pomona College (California) 2014 1,584 14,978 9.5

Table 2: Rankings of selected institutions of higher education by greenhouse gas emissions per full time equivalent student. Figures represent net emissions reflecting carbon offsets (where reported).72

72 American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment, 2014.

33

14. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REDUCING AUC’S CARBON FOOTPRINT Implementing the fifteen recommendations in Box 4 below will help further reduce our carbon footprint. The measures recommended below are not intended to be exhaustive, but address the six activities contributing most significantly to AUC’s carbon footprint, in descending order of emissions. Additionally, a number of the measures recommended in Carbon Footprint 2.0 (covering AY 12) have been fully implemented and thus have been deleted from the list of recommendations. Finally, we will continue to look for ways to improve our data collection, data analysis and methodologies.

Box 4: Recommendations

1. Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) • Install 350 kilowatts to 1 megawatt of solar photovoltaic capacity to substitute emission-free renewable energy for conventionally-produced electricity during periods of peak electricity demand (which largely coincide with periods of peak demand for air conditioning). • Further adjust class schedules and working hours, consolidate activities, and consciously plan space utilization to reduce the need for cooling and heating, particularly during the summer and winter terms when the campus population is low but energy use on a per capita basis remains high. • Consider installation of rooftop solar hot water systems at campus dormitories. 2. Transportation • Improve bus service and adopt other incentives to encourage more students, faculty and staff to commute by bus rather than private car. • Further encourage carpooling by creating preferred parking areas for carpoolers. • Consider converting the University’s own transportation fleet and its commuter buses from diesel and gasoline to natural gas, a more carbon-efficient fuel, or to alternative fuels such as produced from agricultural waste. • Further encourage faculty, staff and students to live closer to the New Cairo campus to reduce the need for commuting and to reduce commuting distances. 3. Lighting and Electrical Equipment • Raise awareness among occupants of private offices to turn off lights, computers and other equipment at night and on weekends. • Convert indoor lighting to LED lamps and outdoor lighting to LED lamps or solar-powered lighting. 4. Refrigerants • Explore using more environmentally-friendly refrigerants. 5. Paper Use • Make two-sided printing and copying the “default option”, and move towards entirely paperless operation by phasing out the use of hard copies. • Find local sources of affordable, high-quality recycled paper to reduce the net carbon footprint of purchased paper. 6. Water Supply • Increase the number of times that water is circulated through the AC cooling towers to reduce consumption of domestic water for air-conditioning. • Conduct experiments with campus landscaping to determine the minimum amount of treated wastewater needed for irrigation. • Increase the use of resistant and salt resistant grasses, plants, shrubs and trees for campus landscaping.

34

REFERENCES Abdin, A.E. and Gaafar, I. (2009). Rational Water Use in Egypt: Technological Perspectives for Rational Use of Water Resources in the Mediterranean Region. Bari, : International Center for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies. pp. 11-27. American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (2014). ACUPCC Reporting System. Online: http://rs.acupcc.org. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. (2014). International Climate Zone Definitions. Online: https://www.ashrae.org. Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE). (2013). Sustainability, Tracking, Assessment and Rating System Reporting Tool. Online: https://stars.aashe.org. AUC Office of Data Analytics and Institutional Research. (2014). AUC Factbook. Online: http://www.aucegypt.edu/research/IR/Research/Documents/Factbook_2013_2014.pdf. AUC Office of Data Analytics and Institutional Research (2014). October 2014 online Transportation Sustainability and Safety survey. AUC Office of Data Analytics and Institutional Research (2012). March 2012 online Transportation Sustainability and Safety survey. AUC Office of Facilities and Operations. (2014). Meter Readings and Analysis. Carboun Group. (2011). A Table of Two Energy Policies: Carboun’s Visual Guide to Energy and Carbon Emissions in the Arab World. Online: http://www.carboun.com. Center for Urban Forest Research Tree Carbon Calculator. Center for Urban Forest Research Pacific Southwest Research Station, US Forest Service, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. (2011). Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/urban-forests/ctcc. Clean Air-Cool Planet Carbon Calculator. The Sustainability Institute of the University of New Hampshire. Online: http://www.campuscarbon.com. Defra/DECC. (2014). Guidelines to Defra/DECC's GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting. Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs/Department for Energy and Climate Change. Online: http://www.ukconversionfactorscarbonsmart.co.uk. Didero, Maike. (2012). Cairo’s Informal Waste Collectors: A Multi-Scale and Conflict Sensitive Perspective on Sustainable Livelihoods. ERDKUNDE. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41444861. Ecometria. (2014). Emissionfactors.com. Online: http://www.emissionfactors.com. Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency. (2013). Estimated GHG Inventory in Egypt. Online: www.eeaa.gov.eg/english/reports/cc/Estimated GHG Inventory in Egypt.pdf. Eid, (2015). Interview with Zabal. Interview. Energy Star. (2013). Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Education. Online: http://www.energystar.gov. Environmental Paper Network. (2012). Paper Calculator. Online: http://c.environmentalpaper.org/home. European Environmental Agency. (2012). EEA Annual Report 2011 and Environmental Statement 2012. Online: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/annual-report-2011. Ezzat, N.G. (2012). Interview Spirit of Youth Association. Interview. Helwan Cement Plant. (2006). Project Design Document Form, CDM PDD, Helwan Cement Plant, Version 3. UNFCCC. Hermann, B.G., L. Debeer, B. De Wilde, K. Blok, M.K. Patel. (2011). To Compost or Not to Compost: Carbon and Energy Footprints of Biodegradable Materials’ Waste Treatment. Polymer Degradation and Stability. 96 (6). June 2011, pp. 1159-1171. Hodges, T. (2009). Public Transportation’s Role in Responding to Climate Change. February, 2012. Online: http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/PublicTransportationsRoleInRespondingToClimate Change.pdf. Industrial Modernization Center, Egypt. (2010). Egypt GHG Emissions Reduction Strategy. McKinsey & Company. Online: http://www.imc- egypt.org/studies/Egypt%20GHG%20Emissions%20Reduction%20Strategy.pdf. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage. Egypt. Online: http://www.icid.org/v_egypt.pdf. International Energy Agency. (2011). CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion Highlights. Online: http://www.iea.org/media/statistics/CO2highlights.pdf. International Energy Agency. (2011). Statistics. Online: http://www.iea.org/stats/index.asp.

35

International Energy Agency. (2012). 2012. Online: www.worldenergyoutlook.org. International Energy Conservation Code (2009). Country-by-Country Climate Zone Information. Online: https://energycode.pnl.gov/EnergyCodeReqs. International Panel for Climate Change. (2006). Revised IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Reference Manual. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Online: http://www.ipcc- nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl. Kinglsey, Patrick. (2014). Waste Not: Egypt’s Refuse Collectors Regain Role at Heart of Cairo Society. . March, 2014. Kongsager, R., Napier, J., and Mertz, O. (2012). The Carbon Sequestration Potential of Tree Crop Plantations: Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies of Tree Crop Plantations. : University of Copenhagen. Vol. 18, No. 8, 2013, pp. 1197-1213. Kuppinger, Peter. (2014). Crushed? Cairo’s Garbage Collectors and Neoliberal Urban Politics. Journal of Urban Affairs. August, 2014. Lodge, Anna. (2014). A One Ton Time Bomb. Carbon Visuals Ltd. Online: http://www.carbonvisuals.com/blog/a-one-ton-time-bomb. Pachauri, R.K. and Resigner, A. (2013). Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007 Synthesis Report. Geneva, : IPCC. Pp. 2.10.2. Online: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and _data/ar4/wg1/ch2s2-10-2.html. Rauch, M. and Tutwiler, R. (2012). Our Carbon Footprint. The Cairo Review of Global Affairs, Spring 2012, pp. 12-15. Rosenthal, E. (2012). The Cost of Cool. , August 18, 2012. Online: http://www. nytimes.com/2012/08/19/sunday-review/air-conditioning-is-an-environmental- quandary.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Sabry, B. (2012). A Guide to Egypt’s Challenges: Fuel & Electricity Shortages. Ahram Online, August 16, 2012. Online: http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/0/49603/Egypt/-Fuel-- Electricity-Shortages.aspx. Simonett, O. (2005). Nile Delta: Potential Impact of . UNEP and GRID-Arendal. Online: http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/nile-delta-potential-impact-of-sea- levelrise_ec80. Smith, A., Brown, K., Ogilvie, S., Rushton, K., and Bates, J. (2001). Waste Management Options and Climate Change. Final Report to the European Commission, DG Environment. Online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/climate_change.pdf Stiglitz, J., Sen, A. and Fitoussi, J.P. (2010). Mis-Measuring Our Lives. The Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, New York: The New Press, pp. 113-116. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2014). Water Scarcity. UN Water. Online: http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/scarcity.shtml. United States Department of Energy. Climate Zones. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Online: http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/climate-zones. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2012). Glossary of Climate Change Acronyms. Online: http://unfccc.int/essential_background/glossary/items/3666.php#C. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2013). Global Warming Potentials. Online: http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/3825.php. United Nations Statistics Division. (2008). Millennium Development Goals Indicators: Carbon Dioxide Emissions (CO2), Thousand Metric Tonnes of CO2 (collected by CDIAC). Online: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=749&crid=. United States Energy Information Administration. (2011). Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program. Emission Factors and Global Warming Potentials. Online: http://www.eia.doe.gov /oiaf/1605/emission_factors.html. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2009. Online: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2013- Main-Text.pdf. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). (A) Calculations and References. Online: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). (B) Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. Online: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html#results.

36

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Composting. Online: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange /wycd/waste/downloads/composting-chapter10-28-10.pdf. Valentine, Katie. (2014). Applying Compost to Soil Can Help Cut Carbon Pollution. Climate Progress. October, 2014. Online: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/22/3582563/compost-soil- carbon-storage. World Bank. (2014). Middle East and North Africa Countries. Online: http://www.worldbank.org/en/region/mena. World Resources Institute (2013). Online: http://www.wri.org.

37

Appendix 1: New Cairo Campus and Map of Greater Cairo 1a. New Cairo Campus, Aerial Photo

1b. Map of Greater Cairo

38

Appendix 2: How the Central Utility Plant Works

Figure 19: Schematic Diagram of the Central Utility Plant on the AUC Campus.

Chilled Water for Air Conditioning

The central utility plant produces all of the chilled water used for air conditioning campus buildings, all of the hot water used for heating, most of the domestic hot water and most of the electricity on campus. (A few areas, such as the library’s rare books section, use stand-alone air-cooled AC units.) Chilled water is produced by five absorption chillers, shown in Figure 19, which use natural gas as their fuel. Waste heat produced by the condensers in the absorption chillers is released through evaporation of water from five cooling towers shown adjacent to the absorption chillers in Figure 19. The cooling towers are shown in Figure 20 below.

Chilled water pumps (shown in Figure 19) circulate the chilled water to 150 air-handling units (AHUs) throughout the campus. The AHUs convert chilled water to cool air, which is then circulated to air- conditioned zones by more than 1,200 variable air volume (VAV) units.

39

Figure 20: Cooling towers form part of AUC’s AC system. Note the evaporating water.

Hot Water for Heating and Domestic Hot Water

All of the hot water for heating the campus, and much of the domestic hot water used on campus, is produced at the central utility plant. In locations where demand for domestic hot water is relatively low, such as restrooms in campus office buildings, hot water is supplied by electric hot water heaters.

Three conventional boilers (shown in yellow in Figure 19 and Figure 21) and two heat recovery boilers (shown next to the generators in Figure 19) produce hot water for heating and for domestic hot water. The three conventional boilers heat water by burning natural gas. The heat recovery boilers (see Figure 19 and Figure 21), by contrast, heat water by using hot exhaust fumes from two of the generators. This is a process known as “co-generation” and is explained below and in Section 3.2.2. Hot water produced by the gas-fired boilers and the heat recovery boilers is circulated to individual facilities throughout the campus by electric pumps, then converted to hot air for heating or used for domestic hot water.

Electricity – Principal Uses

It is estimated that 55% of all electricity used on campus in AY 14 was used for HVAC. This conclusion is based on tests conducted by the Office of Facilities and Operations, which found that shutting down all major HVAC equipment during working hours reduced campus-wide electricity demand by approximately 45%.

Electricity used for HVAC drives pumps that circulate chilled water and hot water throughout the campus for air conditioning, heating, and domestic hot water. Electricity also powers AHUs, VAV units, fans, and other HVAC equipment that is part of the HVAC system. The remaining electricity used on campus is used primarily for lighting, office equipment, lab equipment and the like.

Electricity – From Two Sources

81% of the electricity used on campus in AY 14 was produced by four gas-fired generators located in the area shown in dark blue in Figure 19 and Figure 21.73 As noted above, two of the four generators feed their exhaust fumes to heat recovery boilers for co-generation, a process explained more fully below and in Section 3.2.2. The remaining 19% of the electricity used on campus in AY 14 was obtained from EEA, the public utility.74 The precise mix of electric power drawn from the on-site electricity generators and electric power drawn from the public utility depends on the demand for electricity on campus, the electricity available from each source when needed, and the cost per kilowatt-hour from each source. The electric switchgear referenced in Figure 19 allows technicians to adjust the precise amount of electric power drawn from each source.

73 AUC Office of Facilities and Operations, 2014. 74 Ibid.

40

Co-Generation Co-generation is the design, construction, and operation of a power plant to generate electricity and to recapture waste heat that can be used elsewhere to produce hot water for heating and domestic hot water. The main benefits of co-generation are reduced fuel consumption, reduced energy costs and reduced carbon emissions compared to using conventional (e.g. gas-fired) boilers to produce hot water.

As discussed in Sections 1.5 and 3.3.2 of this report and above in this Appendix 2, at AUC’s central utility plant two of the four gas-fired electricity generators feed hot exhaust fumes to heat recovery boilers that produce hot water for heating and domestic hot water. As a consequence, AUC’s carbon footprint in AY 14 was approximately 2.7% smaller than it would have been without cogeneration.

Central Utilities Plant Systems Inputs and Outputs

Figure 21: Diagram of inputs and outputs at AUC’s central utilities plant.

41

Appendix 3: Differences in Emissions from AY 12 to AY 14 Using AY 14 Methodology

Figure 22: The green rows represent decreases in emissions from AY 12 to AY 14. The red rows represent increases in emissions from AY 12 to AY 14.

42

Appendix 4: Emission Factor Calculations

Base Factors

Natural Gas (NG) Emission Factors75 and their CO2e's:

GWP

EF NG_CO2= 0.202 kg CO2/kWh X 1 = 0.2020 kg CO2e/kWh

EF NG_CH4= 3.60E-06 kg CH4/kWh X 21 = 7.56E-05 kg CO2e/kWh

EF NG_N2O= 3.6E-07 kg N2O/kWh X 310 = 0.00011 kg CO2e/kWh

EF NG_CO2e= 0.2021 kg CO2e/kWh

Residual Fuel (High -Density Fuel Oil) Emission Factors76 and their CO 2e’s :

GWP

EF HFO_CO2= 0.2786 kg CO2/kWh X 1 = 0.2786 kg CO2e/kWh

EF HFO_CH4= 1.08E-05 kg CH4/kWh X 21 = 0.00023 kg CO2e/kWh

EF HFO_N2O= 2.16E-06 kg N2O/kWh X 310 = 0.00067 kg CO2e/kWh

EF HFO_CO2e= 0.2795 kg CO2e/kWh

Calculating the Cairo Electric Grid (EEA) Emission Factor

(Emission FactorNG_CO2e x %Natural Gas) + (Emission FactorHFO_CO2e x %HFO) EFCairo Grid= Production Efficiency

2012 2013 2014 Efficiency of Electricity Production 43.10% 41.19% 41.19% Fuel Mix: Natural Gas 83.8% 78.3% 78.3% HFO 16.2% 21.7% 21.7% Emission FactorCairo Grid 0.4981 0.5315 0.5315

Calculating the Central Utility Plant Emission Factor

(Emission FactorNG_CO2e x %Natural Gas) EFCUP= Production Efficiency

2012 2013 2014 Efficiency of Electricity Production 37.03% 33.75% 33.99% Fuel Mix: Natural Gas 100% 100% 100% HFO 0% 0% 0% Emission FactorCUP 0.5459 0.5990 0.5947

75 IPCC Second Assessment Report, 2010. 76 Ibid.

43

Calculating the Central Utility Plant Heated and Chilled Water Emission Factors

(EFCO2e_NG x % Natural Gas) System Production EFHot Water= Efficiency of Production

(EFCO2e_NG x % Natural Gas) System Production EFChilled Water= Efficiency of Production

EFAuxiliary= (% CUP Elec. of Total x EFCUP) + (% Cairo Grid Elect. of Total x EFCairo Grid)

2012 2013 2014 Fuel Mix: Natural Gas 100% 100% 100% HFO 0% 0% 0% Efficiency of Hot Water Production (GasCool) 84.55% 83.27% 82.70% Emission FactorGasCool HW 0.2391 0.2428 0.2444 Efficiency of Hot Water Production (Kahraba) 90.38% 89.70% 90.31% Emission FactorKahraba HW 0.2237 0.2254 0.2238 Efficiency of Chilled Water Production 77.90% 77.28% 76.77% (GasCool) Emission FactorGasCool CW 0.2595 0.2616 0.2633 Emission FactorAuxiliary Electricity 0.5363 0.5907 0.5827

44

Appendix 5: Domestic Water Supply Delivery Path and Energy Calculation Example

Link from P.S(4) to P.S(5), D1200 mm

45

Appendix 6: Treated Wastewater Supply Delivery Path and Energy Calculation Example

TAGAMOA AUC D = 800 mm

L = 1722 m D = 800 mm

AUC wastewater To Gravity Sewers L = 700 m AL NARGES Elev 322.00 D = 300 mm

L = 9808 m D = 900 mm D = 300 mm EL RODAH Ring Road

PS2 Elev 341.00

Consider Average Elevation = 270.00 PS1 Elev 383.00 L = 5322 m D = 1200 mm UNIV. & Schools Area

D = 900 mm D = 1500 mm 1500 = D

Ring Road

CAIRO - EL Ain Sokhna Ring Road

D = 900 mm

D = 1000 mm

D = 1000 mm

CAIRO - EL Ain Sokhna L = 11027 m D = 1000 mm New WWTP L = 17887 m D = 1500 mm D = 700 mm In operation WWTP Elev 433.00

Fig. 1: Wastewater Drainage & Irrigation Water Supply For The AUC Campus In New Cairo NTS For The AUC Carbon Footprint Report 2011 - 2012 Chemonics Egypt Consultants - March 2013

Symbols & Legend: Wastewater Force Main PS: Pumping Station L: Pipe Length D: Pipe Diameter Irrigation Treated Wastewater Line WWTP: WasteWater Treatment Plant Elev: Elevation

46

Energy Calculations: The following expression is a simple units’ conversion to calculate the pumping energy in kilowatt hours after incorporating the efficiency and power factors:

Energy in Kilowatt hours/m3 = γ(kg/m3)*1(m3)*Pressure Head (m)*9.81/(1000*3600*η*.9) a. Pumping energy consumed in wastewater collection and transmission: • Case 1 (WW originated from the AUC campus) = 1000*1*161.8*9.81/(1000*3600*0.55*0.9)= 0.891 kw.hr • Case 2 (WW from other average source point) = 1000*1*213.8*9.81/(1000*3600*0.55*.9) = 1.177 kw.hr b. Pumping energy for treated wastewater supply from the WWTP up till the Campus site: - Energy consumed in supplying treated wastewater to the AUC Campus location is considered zero. c. Energy consumed in wastewater treatment process: - Energy consumed in activated sludge treatment process is estimated according to the given figures deduced out of design and operation records and the long experience in the field of wastewater treatment: o Energy consumed by air blowers for each 1m3 = 0.4 kw.hr o Energy consumed by other treatment facilities and sludge pumping and site lighting for each 1m3 = 0.2 kw.hr

Over all energy factor for collecting and furnishing treated wastewater to the AUC Campus is:

• Case 1 (WW originated from the AUC campus) =0.891 + 0.6 = 1.49 kw.hr/m3 • Case 2 (WW from other average source point) =1.177 + 0.6 = 1.78 kw.hr/m3

(Over all energy factor previously calculated for fresh water supply = 2.55 kw.hr/m3) Equivalent Overall Energy Factor: The equivalent overall energy factor is driven for the purpose of comparing and sensing the energy present and future savings / losses when introducing treated wastewater to water utilities within the AUC New Cairo Campus. The energy factor here is calculated for mixed use of different types of supplied water:

o Equivalent energy factor before introducing treated wastewater to service = 2.55 kw.hr/m3 o Equivalent energy factor for AY 14 (after fully covering irrigation needs by treated wastewater) = 2.55*41.8% + 1.49*58.2% = 1.93 kw.hr/m3

47